Gillchrist: Murali is a chucker

[Fontaine]

Adam Gilchrist has said he believes Muttiah Muralitharan, the Sri Lankan offspinner, has a suspect action, but blamed the ICC for allowing him bowl in international cricket. Gilchrist wrote in his autobiography that there was no doubt in his mind that as per the laws of the game, Murali and many others have been guilty of chucking. "I don't think he's personally to blame: he bowled the way he bowled, and it was not up to him to do any more than he was asked," Gilchrist wrote in his newly published book True Colours. He said though the argument that Murali's suspect action was an optical illusion was legally correct, it was a "direct attack to the spirit of the game". "As much as I like Murali, my sympathies lay more with those batsmen, from every other nation, whose careers suffered because of a bowler who was in technical breach of the rules and seemed to enjoy a kind of political protection." Murali was first no-balled for his action during his first tour of Australia in 1995-96 and though he was cleared after a biomechanical analysis, the controversy didn't die out. He was called again on the 1998-99 tour to Australia and sent for further tests in Perth and England only to be cleared again. In 2004 the ICC stopped Murali from bowling the doosra, because his arm bent by an average of 10 degrees when bowling the delivery, which was double the permitted level for spinners. But next year, the ICC tweaked the the bowling laws to allow all bowlers "to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees, which was established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye". Gilchrist called the rule change "horse crap" and said the situation had reached an absurd point where the laws were changed to accommodate Murali. "When I heard that the rules would now allow degree of straightening - 15 degrees to be exact, a fraction more than Murali's straightening had been measured at - I thought 'That's a load of horse crap. That's rubbish." Gilchrist said Murali's doosra seemed to pass scrutiny without rigorous examination. "Often Australian players, having seen him bowl yet another suspect doosra past the outside edge, would look at each other in changing room and say: 'Wasn't that one meant to have been sorted out?'" © Cricinfo http://content-www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/376899.html

[Donny]

Ooo, I can't wait for chapter two, where he says all right handed batsmen should be banned.

[DomainK]

Silly Gilly at it again......leeching from famous celebrities' fame. But then its his opinion and he has every right to state it. He is not damaging Tendulkar's/ Ganguly's or Murali's reputation.....he is damaging his own.

[Donny]

How is he doing that ? By being honest ? By stating what other people haven't got the guts to say ? Or, in this case, what many pundits, players, commentators etc. have already said.

[bunny]

Murali does chuck the doosra. His regular offspin action might be fine which supposedly did pass the ICC tests. But, his doosra should be banned. In fact the doosra was banned for a year after which I am not sure what exactly happened.

[chanakya]

How is he doing that ? By being honest ? By stating what other people haven't got the guts to say ?

how much was Mcgrath's and Lee's angle btw? there was some contention over that if i remember correctly.

[Donny]

And this has what to do with the topic ?

[Fontaine]

I'm not convinced that Murali is a chucker but I do find it very interesting that his doosra does have an bend far greater that 10 degrees and the ICC had to change the laws to accomodate a 15 degree bend. But given how there have been so many rule changes recently to help batsmen (changing of the ball in ODI cricket, giving free hits for no balls, making grounds smaller), in the larger context I don't have a problem with helping bowlers as well.

[DomainK]

In isolation, this statement from Gilly does not look bad. But combined with a series of statements quoted from his book recently, this does not look innocuous. It looks more consistent with a strategy of attacking players of reputation for no reason. There is a pattern and there is a motive.

[Lurker]

"I don't think he's personally to blame: he bowled the way he bowled, and it was not up to him to do any more than he was asked," Gilchrist wrote in his newly published book True Colours. He said though the argument that Murali's suspect action was an optical illusion was legally correct, it was a "direct attack to the spirit of the game".

Very well put. Murali's action is suspect. End of the story. The only reason why he bowls is because the all-mighty(and nonsensical) South Asian cricket lobby made sure laws were changed forever. Good on Gilly to be blunt about this. Of course this is not against Murali, as Gilly correctly says. It is against those who made mockery of cricket and changed the laws for good....or in this case bad.

[cochise]

It would be an interesting study to determine the level of straightening of the arm at delivery for all the current bowlers in all sides...we need some kind of benchmark on which to judge this 15 degree law that the ICC has passed i.e. to see how extravagant or otherwise it actually is. As for Murali...to the naked eye, he looks suspect alright. But then, he has a strange rotation/twist of the arm about it's length at delivery that is confusing to the eye as well.

[ssd123]

I don't know why gilchrist even bothered saying it because every cricket follower in the world knows that he chucks it and cheats and takes 200 wickets against bangladesh because they play them all the time. Can someone explain to me why sri lanka have played bangladesh in 9 tests to date and australia have only played them 4 times. Why is that.

[DomainK]

I'm not convinced that Murali is a chucker but I do find it very interesting that his doosra does have an bend far greater that 10 degrees and the ICC had to change the laws to accomodate a 15 degree bend. But given how there have been so many rule changes recently to help batsmen (changing of the ball in ODI cricket, giving free hits for no balls, making grounds smaller), in the larger context I don't have a problem with helping bowlers as well.

Very well put. Murali's action is suspect. End of the story. The only reason why he bowls is because the all-mighty(and nonsensical) South Asian cricket lobby made sure laws were changed forever. Good on Gilly to be blunt about this. Of course this is not against Murali, as Gilly correctly says. It is against those who made mockery of cricket and changed the laws for good....or in this case bad.

I agree with both of you and Gilly. Murali does have a suspect action and it was wrong of ICC to change the rules to accommodate him. Sets the wrong examples and very bad on those young bowlers who worked hard to keep that elbow straight.

[cochise]

Bangladesh needs someone to play with in order to come up to standard. Nothing wrong with Lanka doing that...Lanka itself has only emerged in the last twenty years from minnow status.

[sharma]

gilly takin lessons from the bedi/sarfraz school of communication i reckon lol

[Ram]

My question is, why dont these cricketers, who spare no words in criticizing people in their autobiographies, maintain a monk-like silence during their playing days? Why didnt Adam or for that matter, any of other Aussie cricketers who exchanged sideways glances whenever Murali bowled a Doosra, go and talk to the media about it then? This isnt honest opinions being expressed in a book, its shameless oppurtunism.

[Guest HariSampath]

Its really very simple to understand; an expert marketing research team in Australia has put together all the main points that will sell the book in England and Australia, and combined them all to make Gilly put his name to it: smart move Gilly . Just consider the fact that although there are hundreds of millions of fans in India, no one really would spend $100-$200 or whatever it is to read his book. His market is principally those countries like Aus, NZ, England and South Africa. And those folks just want to read about their longtime gripes, here are a few of their favorites : India and subcontinent have seized cricket power. Sachin is not really the best batter, he is not that much of s sport either. Murali is a chucker. Aussies play hard, but lets not talk about sledging. Lets talk about sporting spirit , meaning NOT about our sledging or cheating, but JUST about subcontinent teams walking off test matches, ball tampering, bullying ICC, over appealing, chucking etc. If Steve Waugh calls out from slip "guess who is stuffin your wife , Sunny"...he is playing the game hard and you have to have a drink with him that evening, because he is your mate. But if Harbhajan speaks Hindi to Symonds, he is a racist If IPL clashes with OUR schedule, then its taking away from spirit of cricket, but if it pays our cricketers more, then we are fine with it, because "it takes the game forward", and we allow our players to participate IPL is circus, but Stanford 20/20 is the original game invented by WG Grace, because England plays. We will refuse to tour Pakistan irrespective of commitments because bombs are going off: we will play IPL in India in the middle of bazaars and bombs, because we like Indian culture and Diwali Bangladesh should be scrapped from world International cricket because it is subcontinent and substandard , but recognition can be given to Ireland , Netherlands and Hong Kong ( after all we still think its British) Azharuddin and Jadeja and generally most subcontinet cricketers,including all from Pakistan are match fixers , but Mark Waugh, Warne, Lillee , Marsh and a host of others are just analysts who give expert opinion about pitches, games , weather information and team combinations to anyone who calls them.....oh..you are asking why they accept money or bet on it...well we in the West dont think its appropriate to comment on others' money matters and professional charges, unlike you coolies in the subcontinent. If Rudy or Bucknor or Benson give out atrocious decisoons, its part of the game, accept it...if a Pakistan or Indian umpire does it...its " oh you know , they are from those parts, what else to expect".... The above themes are just what that makes a Gilly book or for that matter any book expected to sell well in those countries.

[Lurker]

In isolation' date=' this statement from Gilly does not look bad. But combined with a series of statements quoted from his book recently, this does not look innocuous. [b']It looks more consistent with a strategy of attacking players of reputation for no reason. There is a pattern and there is a motive.

I respectfully disagree. What makes for a good cricket autobiography, specially for readers like me, is to see the opinion of the writer with respect to his peers, anecdotes on the field and off it and so on. I am not going to buy Gilchrist's book if he basically spends half of it explaining the process of standing up to someone like Glenn Mcgrath, how to watch the ball, eyes on the pitch and so on. I dont mind a few pages of that but the bulk of my curiosity will be towards the peers, who he thought were toughest competitors, which bowlers made his uncomfortable and so on. I will guarantee you that inspite of what Indian fans might say about Gilchrist book, if they manage to lay their hands the first thing they are gonna check is - Who was better Sachin or Lara? What does Gilly say about Harbhajan? Do Aussie think Kumble was a great spinner or a fluke. There would be very few who would want to check his opinions on Simon and Gerant Jones. Unless he is Salil in which case he would also check what Gilly says about New South Wales player. xxxx

[Sachinism]

I think we'll be able to read a new part of his autobiography on the net everyday there is no need to buy it

[Fontaine]

I respectfully disagree. What makes for a good cricket autobiography, specially for readers like me, is to see the opinion of the writer with respect to his peers, anecdotes on the field and off it and so on. I am not going to buy Gilchrist's book if he basically spends half of it explaining the process of standing up to someone like Glenn Mcgrath, how to watch the ball, eyes on the pitch and so on. I dont mind a few pages of that but the bulk of my curiosity will be towards the peers, who he thought were toughest competitors, which bowlers made his uncomfortable and so on. I will guarantee you that inspite of what Indian fans might say about Gilchrist book, if they manage to lay their hands the first thing they are gonna check is - Who was better Sachin or Lara? What does Gilly say about Harbhajan? Do Aussie think Kumble was a great spinner or a fluke. There would be very few who would want to check his opinions on Simon and Gerant Jones. Unless he is Salil in which case he would also check what Gilly says about New South Wales player. xxxx

That's your opinion, but I'm an Indian fan and I won't be buying this book regardless of what it says about any one player. That kind of personal opinion and sensationalism is seen enough in the media and print. I don't need an ex cricketer to tell me what to think about SRT, Sharma, Laxman or any other player. I can make up my own informed opinion by reading interviews and watching their attitude/actions on the field.