If there is one record that is most likely to go unsurpassed in test cricket, it is Don Bradman’s batting average of 99.94 in 52 matches.
Well, there’s competition brewing up from none other than Muthiah Muralitharan. With the ball, ofcourse!
Murali’s wicket taking spree has reached Bradmaneqsue proportions. He is etching a graph similar to that of Sir Don, as far as bowling is concerned.
Murali’s 58th five-wicket haul in just 111 tests is truly mind boggling and puts him more than a country mile ahead of his contemporaries. His 683 wickets in 111 tests mean, he takes a shade over six wickets every match. Only Sydney Barnes has a better ratio of wickets per match – seven - for the statistically inclined.
These are remarkable figures and should have ensured a confirmed ticket to ‘greatness’ for Murali. But to his and his fans’ misfortune, Murali was in the news for wrong reasons since the beginning of his career. He has been called twice (1995 in a Melbourne test and 1999 in an ODI at Adelaide) and reported once by match referee Chris Broad, as late as in 2004.
Rewind to1963, when Australian Ian Meckiff was ‘called’ for his illegal action. It took another 32 years for ICC to detect a dodgy action, when Henry Olonga was ‘no-balled’ in tests. Are we to believe that in between those years, every bowler to play test cricket had a ‘spotlessly clean’ action? Or do we put it down to sheer incompetence on the part of umpires, who failed to detect the ‘straightening’ of elbow?
Perhaps the answer could be found in former England fast bowler and an authority on biomechanics, Frank Tyson’s article, in which he narrates the following story:
Let me start with a hoary anecdote about Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe. During one of their many fruitful opening partnerships they encountered a blatant chucker. Herbert was reputed to have met Jack for a mid wicket conference and said, "Jack, the bloke bowling at my end is a chucker."
"I know," replied Jack, "Don’t complain. They might take him off."
The empirical moral is clear. Its okay to chuck provided you don’t do it successfully.
"I know," replied Jack, "Don’t complain. They might take him off."
The empirical moral is clear. Its okay to chuck provided you don’t do it successfully.
This is not to insinuate that Murali chucks. But to ICC’s great discomfort and horror, Murali was hugely successful in test cricket. He was now a ‘problem’, they could neither sweep below the carpet nor shoo away. The blame for this predicament lay squarely at ICC’s doorstep. They ought to have taken a proactive, and more importantly, firm action, if in their opinion, Murali chucked. But they chose to be ambiguous and as a result Murali, even at the height of his glory, had to endure constant public scrutiny, sometimes, even ridicule.
Lesser players would have wilted long ago under the extraordinary pressure. But not Murali. He was made of sterner stuff. To his eternal credit, Murali came out stronger every time he passed through the ‘kangaroo’ court.
Today, Murali is only 26 wickets shy of overtaking Shane Warne, another great spinner, as the highest wicket taker in test cricket. They say, spinners get better with age. Murali, Warne and Kumble are living examples of this adage. He has minimum three years of good cricket ahead of him, in which he can easily add 150 more to his wickets column.
After he is retired, Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) should have a dedicated Post Box Number to honour his achievements - the Sri Lankan equivalent of 9994!
10 comments:
Murali, a DON ? Are you joking ? Yes he is a DON, but for chucking and illegal bowling. He throws, throws and throws.
His wkts come cheap against minnows, he fails against top teams like India, Australia.
He bowls unchanged throughout the day. He is a disgrace to the game of cricket. A big joke on the game. He has ruined the credibility of the game with his illegal action
Murali is the Barry Bonds (Baseball) of Cricket. While Barry is alledged to have taken steriods, Murali has certainly challenged the laws that govern bowling. Both will be owners of prestigious records in time but both will be denied the full adulation of fans and respect from peers.
I personally salute Warne and Kumble over Murali. I like the guy's guts, for it is not easy to stick to what you believe in when the whole world is against you; but come on at the end of the day he uses his wrists and elbow to generate spin. He is the best elbow spinner ever to play the game; I give it to him.
Infact the bowlers I feel for are Brett Lee and Shoaid Akhtar. I think they occasionaly do bend the elbow but that bend gives them no genuine advantage, it truly seems to be a mechanical problem as opposed trying to generate pace. Watch them in regular speed (as opposed to a slow motion) and it is clear that the bent elbow offers no advantage to their pace. I am no expert on these matters but it is my layman's best guess.
Oi, achei teu blog pelo google tá bem interessante gostei desse post. Quando der dá uma passada pelo meu blog, é sobre camisetas personalizadas, mostra passo a passo como criar uma camiseta personalizada bem maneira. Até mais.
superunknown,
Your comment is exactly the thing I wanted to convey through my post, that of Murali being chastised even in his hour of glory.
That Murali takes wickets only against minnows is a myth. He has taken 146 wickets in 21 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Which means 6.9 wickets every match against his career ratio of 6.11. Not much of a difference, or is it?
And since when has bowling unchanged through out the day, become a bad thing? You make it sound as if one has to just wake up one fine morning and start bowling!
Golandaaz,
I would differ with you when you say that Lee and Akhtar's bent elbow does not give them any significant advantage. Is it a coincidence that Bret Lee and Akhtar's 'effort ball', which is more likely to surprise the batsman and create doubt, is one that is suspicious?
Now if you are willing to give them the benefit of doubt on the basis of it being a mechanical problem, why not give the same to Murali? It can be a case of a physical deformity!
Both of you must have read this article before. If not, here is the link:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/07/1089000223490.html?from=storylhs
The fact that Murali can bowl with a brace on does not prove he does not straighten his elbow in match conditions. With his action, he is bound to occasionally. And as you've observed, it's the 'effort ball' that often gets the wicket. Lee and Akhtar use it for the bouncer, and Murali for the doosra that is almost a leg-spin. In fact, the ICC's process for clearing a bowling action is naive, because for a bowler to be able to demonstrate he can bowl a legitimate ball does not he chuck once in a while to steal a wicket. The rule should be that a bowler should get a warning whenever he is caught on tape chucking in a match, and then banned if he does it again. This latitude that has been given to bowlers like Lee and Murali is unfair to those who compete with a clean action, like Shane Bond. What makes Erapalli Prasanna the greatest offspinner ever for me is that he did it with a clean action, both the offspin and his great floater. It takes genius to do that. Slackening the requirement negates that genius.
The fact that Murali can bowl with a brace on does not prove he does not straighten his elbow in match conditions. With his action, he is bound to occasionally. And as you've observed, it's the 'effort ball' that often gets the wicket. Lee and Akhtar use it for the bouncer, and Murali for the doosra that is almost a leg-spin. In fact, the ICC's process for clearing a bowling action is naive, because for a bowler to be able to demonstrate he can bowl a legitimate ball does not mean he will not chuck once in a while in a match to steal a wicket. The rule should be that a bowler should get a warning whenever he is caught on tape chucking in a match, and then banned if he does it again. This latitude that has been given to bowlers like Lee and Murali is unfair to those who compete with a clean action, like Shane Bond. What makes Erapalli Prasanna the greatest offspinner ever for me is that he did it with a clean action, both the offspin and his great floater. It takes genius to do that. Slackening the requirement negates that genius.
sorry, please ignore the first post which ahs typos
My be he should bowl with the brace all the time!
ha, ha, like ivanhoe :)
Fine achievement for Murali. Now he's taken 700. Congratulations!
I read the article from the link you so kindly provided...it is difficult to argue with science and evidence from laboratories, and I have quite a bit of faith in scientific methods, yet, for long and sometimes even now, as the author of the article himself felt, I find myself resisting the thought that he's chucking when I see him play. I've seen him live on the ground in a match ,and practising before the day commenced. My sympathies are with the umpires however, because they do not have instant access to this technology that shows us instantly that the peculiar quirkiness of his action is after all an optical illusion due to a deformed shoulder and perfectly legal.
It's an amazing thing, a curious action, fair since it conforms to the law, but for the life of me, I cannot understand the deformities that article talks about from medical point of view unless details are provided. I cannot recollect having read in my UG days, of any such "shoulder deformity" the article says it has found. Maybe they have taken x-rays and MRI's in addition and have come to the conclusion...details are needed here. I'll look up shoulder deformities meanwhile in the library.
Nearly every bowler in match conditions bends a rule or two, especially if they are in a very long and tiring spell or innings...not all balls bowled by every bowler are the same all the time.
Post a Comment