Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
Your Brand, Our Creativity!
RanaDerana On-line
Updated:
Yesterday at 12:40 PM
Toyota Vitz scp10 For Sale
Lakmal Bandara
Updated:
Wednesday at 10:50 AM
Kandy
Welcome all my all new pet shop Bark.lk
dilumrane
Updated:
Monday at 12:26 PM
Windows RDP Only Rs.500 a month
Blogerwiki
Updated:
Sunday at 12:41 PM
Ad icon
V2ray VPN for Tunneling
hu KANNA
Updated:
Oct 22, 2026
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
ElaKiri.com
News and Updates
Muralitharan's action not clean - Gilchrist
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jayampathi" data-source="post: 3319126" data-attributes="member: 470"><p><span style="font-size: 18px">what do you think about this?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px">earlier he criticize sachin and now it's our murali?</span></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"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".</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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?'"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jayampathi, post: 3319126, member: 470"] [SIZE="5"]what do you think about this? earlier he criticize sachin and now it's our murali?[/SIZE] 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?'" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Payakata winadi keeyak tibeda?
Post reply
Top
Bottom