Shoaib Akhtar -- as blatant a chucker as we've ever seen
kris...@ureach.com
Scarlethawk
dong
expert. His analysis is pretty idiotic as he discounts the most
important fact while comparing RP Singh and Shoaib i.e. Speed. For
comparison he has selected a ball where Shoaib is bowling a ball at 90+
mph and comparing it with an RP Singh delivery which is being bowled at
78 mph. I am not sure whether he is doing it on purpose to prove some
preconceived notion or may be he is just an idiot and likes comparing
apples with oranges.
I just saw a parallel analysis comparing Shoaib's slower ball i.e.
78mph with the same RP singh 78 mph delivery which rubbishes Michael
Holding's analysis completely.
Dong
RishiX
earlier or not, are 2 totally different issues. Chappell was definitely
wrong in complaining after a loss, but that does not take away the fact
that he chucks. So they are really sour grapes - only that Chappell
said they are sour after eating 10 of them. (Watch the Akhtar slo-mo
video that is found in the same link).
Geico Caveman
You have it backwards. Just because you bowl (or "chuck") faster does not
give you the right to break the rules.
Obey the rules, and then bowl as fast as you can if you want to.
Rules are about the action, not the speed. So, his observations are valid.
Geico Caveman
What does this have to with Holding ?
RishiX
says ... "sour grapes". ****
Why should my post have anything to do with Holding?
max.it
Biomechanics for the masses. Holding was fair.
Boycott was fair and Waqar was fair.
Until and slomo cam can sit in studio and explain it's pictures,
then it's just entertainment.
kathy...@yahoo.com
>>Boycott was fair and Waqar was fair.
IF everybody is fair, then only ICC and their bowling
action review commitee seems to totally unfair which
cleared Murali, Shoaib and Harbhajan but slapped a
banned on Shabbir!
shariq...@yahoo.com
why the use of thebouncer in Karachi was deliberately sparing. However,
in this case Michael Holding does not even make sense and I will tell
you why. He talks about the bent arm of Shoaib before it passes his ear
and suggests that it is indicative of a chuck. Straightening of the arm
before it's past the ear is allowed and Shoaib's arm at the point is
straight/stretched out. However, after that point Shoaib snaps his arm
down with considerable movementof the elbow on his bouncer. If you
really want to see this watch a sideview of the ball that struck
Sachin on the helmet and you will see where the jerk took place. So
that blows Holding's theory of the front view being used to determine
the legality of bowlers before the arm has passed the ear
VJ
Holding may not be right but it helps that someone at his level is
raising the issue in a reasonable manner without too much emotion etc.
The chucking issue is not going away and is hanging in front of
everyone's face like a giant matzo ball (sorry could not resist). It
needs to be addressed soon to everyone's satisfaction (well to almost
everyone's satisfaction). The worst feeling for a bowler would be to
achieve much but have an asterisk by it all.
Yuk Tang
news:1144506558.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> The worst feeling for a
> bowler would be to achieve much but have an asterisk by it all.
Whereas the best feeling for a batsman would be to achieve much and
have an asterisk by it all. Cf. SR Waugh.
--
Cheers, ymt.
R. Bharat Rao
"Scarlethawk" <thescar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144435163.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> kris...@ureach.com wrote:
>> Watch Michael Holding's excellent analysis:
> As Geoffry Boycott says ... "sour grapes".
Nope that NOT what he said. Boycott said that Greg Chappell's talking
about it after a loss was "sour grapes" -- and I agree that it is.
However, that doesn't change one iota the validity (or lack thereof) of
Michael Holding's analysis, which seems pretty spot on. And Geoffrey
was very very careful to only speak about that fact that Chappell shouldn't
have talked about this publicly after India lost -- and in fact,
specifically
refused to discuss whether Akhtar was a chucker or not...
So "sour grapes" is completely irrelevant to whether Michael Holding's
analysis of Shoaib Akhtar as a chucker is correct or not.. (And if you
followed the commentary in the Tests, a couple of times, on blatant
Akhtar chucks, Holding would chuckle and make references to something
he had seen, which he would discuss "later" with the commentator.)
Bharat
R. Bharat Rao
"dong" <dongc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144439885....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The fact that Akhtar does not chuck his slower ball, or indeed even his
normal deliveries, doesn't have any impact on whether he chucks his
faster deliveries.
Claiming "but I didn't steal on Mon-Wed" isn't a legit defense for having
stolen on Friday...
Bharat
tan...@gmail.com
away the bicep at an obtuse angle, not towards the bicep (more than 180
degrees). That's what hyperextension is, and unless you change that
angle more than 15 degrees (or whatever the limit is now) after your
upper arm is horizontal (before delivery), you're ok. Holding was a
great fast bowler, but obviously isn't a biomechanics expert, nor even
a geometry expert. You can draw a straight line through any three
points on a plane, so basically you can get a camera at a point to get
the arm to look straight even for the most blatant chucker, so just
because the camera is at a point for R. P. Singh to give a straight
line vs. a bent line for Akhtar means squat.
ltusenet
rkusenet wrote:
> tan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You look from the front, you look from the side, his forearm is bent
> > away the bicep at an obtuse angle, not towards the bicep (more than
> > 180 degrees). That's what hyperextension is, and unless you change
> > that angle more than 15 degrees (or whatever the limit is now) after
> > your upper arm is horizontal (before delivery), you're ok. Holding
> > was a great fast bowler, but obviously isn't a biomechanics expert,
> > nor even a geometry expert.
> > You can draw a straight line through any
> > three points on a plane, so basically you can get a camera at a point
> > to get the arm to look straight even for the most blatant chucker,
>
> Well I thought a straight line can be drawn only with two points.
> To draw a straight line with three points, those 3 points should
> already be lined up.
Caveat to Straight Line Fits:
"Suffiicient number of points on a plane can be made to lie on a
straight line with a judiciously chosen Line Width"
>
> > so just because the camera is at a point for R. P. Singh to give a
> > straight line vs. a bent line for Akhtar means squat.
>
> Anyhow coming back to cricket, what are you saying. Does SA chucks
> or not?
Spaceman Spiff
> You look from the front, you look from the side, his forearm is bent
> away the bicep at an obtuse angle, not towards the bicep (more than
> 180 degrees). That's what hyperextension is, and unless you change
> that angle more than 15 degrees (or whatever the limit is now) after
> your upper arm is horizontal (before delivery), you're ok. Holding
> was a great fast bowler, but obviously isn't a biomechanics expert,
> nor even a geometry expert.
neither are you, it appears :-)
> You can draw a straight line through any
> three points on a plane,
no you can't. you can draw an arc through any 3 points on a plane.
however, you *can* draw a plane through any three points in three
dimensional space.
> so basically you can get a camera at a point
> to get the arm to look straight even for the most blatant chucker, so
> just because the camera is at a point for R. P. Singh to give a
> straight line vs. a bent line for Akhtar means squat.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Gafoor
> tan...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You look from the front, you look from the side, his forearm is bent
>> away the bicep at an obtuse angle, not towards the bicep (more than
>> 180 degrees). That's what hyperextension is, and unless you change
>> that angle more than 15 degrees (or whatever the limit is now) after
>> your upper arm is horizontal (before delivery), you're ok. Holding
>> was a great fast bowler, but obviously isn't a biomechanics expert,
>> nor even a geometry expert.
>
> neither are you, it appears :-)
>
>> You can draw a straight line through any
>> three points on a plane,
>
> no you can't. you can draw an arc through any 3 points on a plane.
Maybe he isn't talking about a regular plane.
Maybe it's a special plane - air force one or something
jlic...@yahoo.com
Hate to state the obvious, but maybe his faster delivery is faster
BECAUSE he chucks it.
Spaceman Spiff
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>> tan...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You look from the front, you look from the side, his forearm is bent
>>> away the bicep at an obtuse angle, not towards the bicep (more than
>>> 180 degrees). That's what hyperextension is, and unless you change
>>> that angle more than 15 degrees (or whatever the limit is now) after
>>> your upper arm is horizontal (before delivery), you're ok. Holding
>>> was a great fast bowler, but obviously isn't a biomechanics expert,
>>> nor even a geometry expert.
>>
>> neither are you, it appears :-)
>>
>>> You can draw a straight line through any
>>> three points on a plane,
>>
>> no you can't. you can draw an arc through any 3 points on a plane.
>
> Maybe he isn't talking about a regular plane.
> Maybe it's a special plane - air force one or something
>
on air force one, you can draw conclusions without any points whatsoever.
tan...@gmail.com
> You can draw a straight line through any
> three points on a plane,
"no you can't. you can draw an arc through any 3 points on a plane.
however, you *can* draw a plane through any three points in three
dimensional space. "
Three points define a plane, you look at that plane edge-on, it's a
line. Yes, Gafoor, laugh at that one, you probably cheated on your test
and got through.
Gafoor
What makes you think I got through?
Mad Hamish
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I for one have always said that Akhtar chucks his effort ball. That's
>why the use of thebouncer in Karachi was deliberately sparing. However,
>in this case Michael Holding does not even make sense and I will tell
>you why. He talks about the bent arm of Shoaib before it passes his ear
>and suggests that it is indicative of a chuck. Straightening of the arm
>before it's past the ear is allowed
Here's the current rules
"3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's
arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the
elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that
point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not
debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery
swing."
So unless Shoaib's ear is also rather strange you're wrong.
>and Shoaib's arm at the point is
>straight/stretched out. However, after that point Shoaib snaps his arm
>down with considerable movementof the elbow on his bouncer. If you
>really want to see this watch a sideview of the ball that struck
>Sachin on the helmet and you will see where the jerk took place. So
>that blows Holding's theory of the front view being used to determine
>the legality of bowlers before the arm has passed the ear
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Phil.
That would be the committee which found that Murali threw his doosra
and banned him from bowling it when he was last tested by the ICC.
They also made the following ruling about Harbhajan (they were hampered
by substandard video footage from the Test when he was reported
otherwise it's fairly clear he would have been in trouble).
"The ICC today confirmed that Indian spinner, Harbhajan Singh, will be
able to continue to bowl in international cricket provided that he uses
an action consistent with that used in the bio-mechanical tests
conducted at the University of Western Australia in February 2005.
.........
The Portus Report identified several differences in the actions
employed by Harbhajan during the match against Pakistan and that
analysed at the University of Western Australia but was unable to reach
a definitive conclusion on the action used in the Pakistan match."
Shoaib's doosra wasn't tested because it appeared that he had
discontinued its use, he was warned that he was likely to be reported
if he used it again. So none of the three bowlers you referred to have
been cleared by the ICC.
Phil.
ltusenet
tan...@gmail.com wrote:
> Spaceman Spiff:
>
> > You can draw a straight line through any
> > three points on a plane,
>
> "no you can't. you can draw an arc through any 3 points on a plane.
> however, you *can* draw a plane through any three points in three
> dimensional space. "
>
> Three points define a plane, you look at that plane edge-on, it's a
> line.
Yes and look at it from the end of the line and you should see the
point.
Mad Hamish
>Spaceman Spiff:
>
>> You can draw a straight line through any
>> three points on a plane,
>
>"no you can't. you can draw an arc through any 3 points on a plane.
>however, you *can* draw a plane through any three points in three
>dimensional space. "
>
>Three points define a plane, you look at that plane edge-on, it's a
>line.
Which isn't the same as being able to draw a line through and three
points on a plane.
> Yes, Gafoor, laugh at that one, you probably cheated on your test
>and got through.
--
kathy...@yahoo.com
>>stolen on Friday...
Good logic....but by the same logic if you are
proven "not gulity" by the jury/judge, then why
loose sleep over if you stole on Friday or Monday
......or even you stole at all?
Holding, being part of media and being in journalism,
has to be sensational (or stupid and idiot) once in a
while to maintain his commercial value...that's all!
Boycott is right....."soure grapes"!! None of the Pakistani
team management/player/fans complained about Murali's
action during/before/after the SL tour. If your (or any) team's
batsmen are good, they should be able to play any ball thrown
at them....chucked or legal...you just play and let the umpires,
referees and ICC worry about who is breaking the laws!
ICC banned Shabbir and tomorrow, if Shoaib gets banned,
fine.....but as long as he is cleared......don't be soooooo
concerned about his bowling action!
tan...@gmail.com
the point I'm making about Holding's mistake? Or you don't have
anything to say?
jlic...@yahoo.com
kathy...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Boycott is right....."soure grapes"!! None of the Pakistani
> team management/player/fans complained about Murali's
> action during/before/after the SL tour. If your (or any) team's
> batsmen are good, they should be able to play any ball thrown
> at them....chucked or legal...
This is a candidate for funniest post of the year. And by funny, I mean
stupid.
kathy...@yahoo.com
>>stupid.
What part of this made to yap.....may I ask, respectfully,
if you have stopped laughing?
pgg...@optonline.net
reasoning people. But to use a legal expression he chucks with malice
aforethought, which is also clear to most people. His attempt to behead
Dhoni with a series of chucksin Pakistan tells me that if he continues
in international cricket in the same manner, there could be tragedy
waiting to happen round the corner.That Pakistan did not haul him up
after that incident tells me that they are colluding in his
criminality.
Gopal
kathy...@yahoo.com
Way to go Gopal!!.......seems like you have never heard
of any other bowler bowling a beamer in a match? Therefore,
as soon as he bowls a first ever beamer in an international
game, he is labled as "psychopathic". Right?
......and how many cricket boards "haul their bowlers up" for
bowling a freaking beamer?? Do you have any example,
BCCI or any other board for that matter..."hauled their bowlers up"
in the past?
As for as PCB "colluding in his criminality" is concerned, this
is "your" opinion.....but here is the reality.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/htcricket/14_1660065.htm
P.S. Would love to hear jlichterm's comments about your post! ;-)
pgg...@optonline.net
was sent back home after he bowled a beamer in India. In those days
it was more clearly a crime as they did not have helmets and other
protective paraphernalia.
You have your opinion as Mr jichterm will have his, In opinion if a
person deliberately chucks to hurt or kill, he MUST be banned.
Gopal
kathy...@yahoo.com
Phew......I can breath easy now...at least Shoaib did not bowl
FIRST beamer in the history of international cricket. There
has been ONE beamer bowled before Shaoib...;-)
Now I agree, PCB should have banned Shoaib for at least
5 years for bowling that beamer.
>>if a person deliberately chucks to hurt or kill, he MUST
>>be banned.
.......but the tragedy is that all the morons and idiots are running
ICC, PCB, bowling action review committe......while geniouses
like you and me are sitting here on a sunday afternoon....wasting
our talent on the net!
If I ever met the bastards who cleared Shaoib and Murali and Harbhajan,
I'd punch them in their face!
As for as PCB "colluding in his criminality" is concerned, this
is "your" opinion.....but here is the reality.
Dalmiya, three others, quizzed by police in BCCI case
Press Trust of India
Mumbai, March 27, 2006
Former Cricket Board President Jagmohan Dalmiya and three other former
office-bearers of the BCCI on Monday appeared before the Economic
Offences Wing of the city police which is probing alleged
misappropriation of Rs 21.74 lakh from the World Cup 1996 account.
Besides Dalmiya, the other office-bearers were former BCCI Secretary SK
Nair and former treasurers Kishore Rungta and Jyoti Bajpai.
They were accompanied by a battery of lawyers, including Sayaji Nangre
and Satish Maneshinde.
All of them were taken to the Crime Branch conference hall where they
would be quizzed in the absence of their lawyers. The interrogation
would continue till 5 pm, police sources said.
Dalmiya and others appeared before EOW of city police on a directive
given by the Bombay High Court which heard their anticipatory bail plea
last week and extended till April 10 the interim protection from arrest
granted to them.
The court had ordered Dalmiya and others to attend EOW inquiry in
Mumbai on March 27, 28, 29, 31 and before the concerned authority in
Kolkata from April 3 to 5.
The judge asked them to appear before the concerned authorities in
Kolkata on a plea made by Advocate General Ravi Kadam who said
investigations pertained to the World Cup 1996 account operated in
Kolkata.
The court also ordered them not to leave the country without its
permission.
pgg...@optonline.net
will know what I feel about him and his cohorts. But at least India is
an open society with a relatively free and clean judiciary. I will not
say the same thing about the politicians or the BCCI for that matter.
But, what has that got to do with a predator like Akhthar ?
Gopal
kathy...@yahoo.com
I was just responding to your following comment;
>>That Pakistan did not haul him up
>> after that incident tells me that they are colluding in his
> >criminality.
1) You are calling PCB and Shoaib "criminals" .....what about
the "real" criminals .....Dalmiya and BCCI?
2) When ever I watched a beamer bowled by a bowler, it was not
regarded as a criminal activity....and believe me I have seen
tons of beamers bowled at internation level....no Board was
ever "hauled up" any bowler for bowling a beamer!
3) As far as chucking is concerned, Shoaib, Murali and Harbhajan
have been cleared by ICC and no umpire has called them....no
referee has reported them..........so anybody who does not like
their bowling action should just keep their mouth shut....becuase it is
not
going to make an iota of a difference. If ICC can banned Shabbir......
it can also ban Shoaib. Murali and Harby.
4) If their was any problem with Shoaib's action, why didn't England
team/players/ECCB whinned like Chappell when Shaoib took 17 wickets
against them in Nov-05 to beat them 2-0? Why British counties are
begging
him to play county cricket if his action is wrong? His action is only
wrong according
to idiots like Holding and some "experts" on this net who Boycott
described the
best.........."Soure grapes!!!!"......and these experts think, ICC and
its bowling
action review committee is run by MORONs and IDIOTS who have
cleared Shoaib and Murali!
Classic case of whining......our batsmen can't play
their (Shoaib/Murali's) high class bowling.....so lets go after their
bowing
action and have them banned!!
pgg...@optonline.net
life like Akhthar. If one looked at what happened in Pakistan I would
not show off if I were you. I was not, but if something had happened to
Dhoni, you would have an international incident. In tests even though
Pakistan clearly won one
test, Pakistani bowling got battered rather badly in the other tests.
Also the Pakistanis got their clock cleaned in one dayers.I would say
that on balance the whole thing was pretty even with a clear edge to
India in ODI's. The pitches were a scandal though.
gopal