Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - The ballad of Murali and Barry

Containing my anger, I suggested it was a generational thing. I’ve certainly never heard an under-30 utter the c- word in this context. Look at Sachin Vaja, the Three Caps offspinning stalwart newly contracted to the county club. Murali is his idol. He would not have developed that wristy mode of delivery otherwise, much less out-bowl Saqlain Mushtaq when Essex 2nd XI met their Sussex counterparts last month. And nobody has batted an eyelid at him.

It struck me, not for the first time, that there is probably nothing, sadly, that can be done about these divergent perceptions. To some Murali is a cheat, a wickedly-grinning cad to match Terry-Thomas at his most bounderish. To others, he is cricket’s greatest matchwinner, and certainly its most heartwarming success story of modern times. Nobody, not even George Headley, has done more to inspire his team. Nobody, I would also contend, has ever had to clamber further or scrap harder to reach any sporting summit. From the parched fields of Kandy to becoming the only Tamil in the Sri Lanka dressing room; from trial-and-ridicule by Australian umpires whose impartiality roused doubt to trial-by-ICC with arm in sling. Every hoop has been jumped through, every dart met by a disarmingly toothy smile. A Murali tantrum? Rarer than a kind on-field word or modest media declamation from Glenn McGrath. Yet still the darts fly.

It is tempting, as ever, to cite racism as a root cause: to some, the idea of a Sri Lankan being the most prolific bowler in the game’s history is quite intolerable. In which case an instructive parallel can be drawn between Murali and his pursuit of Shane Warne’s 708 Test victims, and Barry Bonds, the African-American slugger currently bearing down on Hank Aaron’s Major League-record 755 home runs.

Bonds has been accused of cheating too, his perceived crime being the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Though nothing has been proven - even if it was, he would scarcely have been his sport’s only such offender – an indelible stain has attached itself.

The fact that batting, in baseball as in cricket, is a good deal more about timing than brute force, is almost invariably glossed over. Bonds’s cranium may have expanded alarmingly – and there seems to be a better than even chance that drugs are indeed the source – but what sets him apart is his ability to make productive connection with the ball more consistently than virtually any other big bopper in baseball annals. So far as I am aware, no drug has yet been invented that enhances hand-eye coordination while improving concentration. And yes, almost inevitably, the divide between the Barry lovers and the Bonds-bashers is largely along racial lines.

There are, however, a couple of distinct differences between Barry and Murali. For one thing, the former earns more money in a month than the latter will do in his lifetime. Throughout his 20-year career, Bonds, the son of an alcoholic major leaguer whose career coincided with the uncomfortable initial flowering of African-Americans in American sport, has tended to treat the media as the avowed enemy, multiplying the Bonds-bashers tenfold. Murali is patience personified, a genial genie.

What unites them further, however, is what they attract. Envy, jealousy, the green-eyed monster – whatever you want to call it, they arouse it, in forebears as well as peers. Which is why, when Jeff Perlman set off in search of former teammates and opponents prepared to discredit Bonds for his recent book Love Me, Hate Me – Barry Bonds and the making of an antihero, he was not short of takers. And why Murali’s fellow cricketers still whisper sour nothings.

Racism and jealousy: does it really matter which comes first? In the realms of the Seven Deadliest Sins, they’re as destructive as each other.

Nothing racist about it!

Though many people might object to Murali's action based on their bias to his race, I think there is sufficient argument to object against his action, purely cricketing wise.

Bowling back of the hand using the wrist to propel the ball in front of the arm (unlike leg spin where it is slung side ways) does use the elbow. All those mechanics and super slow motions just complicate things. Cricket is supposed to be judged by an umpire on the field, not in the lab by some biomechanics expert! Look at his bowling sideways and you can never be sure that it was a legitimate delivery - doosra or otherwise.

Murali's ability to turn the doosra more than a Warne leg break and his accuracy and control of flight, though remarkable, would not, for many, be enough to put him in their 'greats' list, including myself. If this were racist, it must be would have to be criticized but (un)fortunately it is not.

He sure is a gem of a person and a very good sportsman but a bowler, for me, he is not.

Rob,
I think there's a possibility you do a large parcel of the muralis questioners an injustice. I don't think its racism, or jealousy. Its to do with the fact that some people have strong ethical categories that they find hard to break/bend. And in their eyes Murali has transgressed those categories. Because they tend to be an inflexible lot, they will possibly never change their view. The majority of people are not so inflexible and they allow themselves to bend with the times. To get the inflexible lot to change, you need to come up with a good argument that convinces them. Blaming it on racism just adds fuel to the flames of the emotional lot who like to get outraged and fall back on the single-word argument of racism. But that's most probably missing the nub of the argument..

I am 25 and I call it as I see it. Muralitharan is a cbucker. Everyone I know (all around my age or younger) who has an opinion on the subject, shares my view. The fact that the law has been changed is farcical. Murali seems like a great guy. Im sure we would be hard pressed to find a nicer personality in cricket and he has considerable talent. I am afraid, however, that he gains extra leverage from his elbow, slinging the ball out with considerable ease. I just cannot for the life of me see how anyone cannot acknowledge that. Whether he is double jointed or not is entirely immaterial. I wish he were legal and there were no arguments but he isn't and it is just a shame that he will take more wickets than Warne, who has not even 10% of the class that Murali has as a person. But Warne was a genius. And a legitimate one at that.

As I write this, I'm aware that many will summarily dismiss me as a 'racially biased' Asian rooting for another.

The truth of the matter is, many stiff-collared gentlemen from England and Australia (and lately South Africa) can't bring themselves to believe, or accept, that Warne, the tormentor or England, can be ousted in skill and stats by an Asian. After all, Warne got more English wickets than any other bowler. So what if England are the worst players of spin after Zimbabwe?

The truth of the matter also is that Murali is not only a better bowler, he is also by far a better human being. While the former claim might be disputable, let me hear anyone contradict the latter! Shane Warne was one of the most abominable personalities ever to set foot on a cricket field - Murali is one of the most genial.

I would like to see the red faces of our distinguished gentlemen at MCG and Lords, after Murali has effortlessly crossed 1000 wickets in Tests, and 750 in ODIs... But then they would probably say - "Ah the chucker has been redeemed by the changing times"!

Wonderful. Thank you for writing this.

As a cricket lover, I am sick to the core of the inevitable chorus of naysayers jumping at every opportunity to bemoan Murali's achievements as a scar on the face of cricket. Why Will Luke's Corridor blog had an entry following Murali's 700th wicket, and the very first response was some predictable sod repeating the same old tripe.

As a Sri Lankan, I can tell you that Murali is our pride and joy. No one - least of all his team mates - view him as the Tamil guy (by the way, Russel Arnold, recently retired, is also a Tamil) who is fighting against the odds. As far as I can tell you, Murali has always been accepted into the team with open arms. Arjuna Ranatunga put his entire career on the line to save Murali from Ross Emerson's egoistical and draconian umpiring. To some, Murali embodies hope for a nation that is divided along ethnic lines.

I am reluctant to pull up the racism card simply because it is more often than not a cop-out – a short cut - adopted by those who love to argue, but do so without any substance.

In Murali’s case some of his most passionate supporters are Caucasians – Sir Don Bradman (apparently), Mark Nicholas, Tony Crieg being the most notable – while his most high profile detractor is none other than Bishen Singh Bedi. I also recall the on air commentary of Sir Ian Bishop the last time Murali was no-balled in a match: that fractious match between England and Sri Lanka at Adelaide in 1999. Sir Beefy is never short for words or opinion, as you all may know; he spent most of his commentary stints throughout the reminder of the match ridiculing Ross Emerson. Included in that memorable rant was the following: “I am sorry, but this man is a club cricketer and it’s quite apparent he doesn’t know anything about umpiring in an international cricket”. Leave it Beefy.

Great articel there. Over the years I have watched Murali and he has always impressed me. I hated that Darrell Hair no-balled him 7 times. It felt like that was the reason why Murali has not done well in the few tests that he played in Australia.

Each time that his action was scrutinized I only hoped that they would clear him simply because he is such a great spinner. His hunger for the game is always seen in that smile he always has, good days or bad ones. It is that smile which cricket fans should look at and not what Australian umpires think of his action.

As for barry bonds, I think he should not be blamed if he has taken drugs. American sports all through the 20th century had no known drug bans or regular drug testing. Since fans wanted to see more unbelieveable moves from Athletes, drugs became part of American sport. Barry Bonds has taken all this pressure very well by saying that he doesn not care what the baseball world thinks of him. He has a whole ballpark in San Francisco to cheer him on and who believe in him and that is why he hits home runs.

Recently people have pointed to the fact that Murali has gotten a lot of his wickets in recent times against weaker Bangladeshi opposition. From the matches that I have watched Bangladesh play and from what I have read, Bangladesh seem to be one of best teams that play spin. They get out to murali not because they cannot play him. they get out only because they lose patience in Tests. So murali should be give credit there for being patient. Murali will more than likely go on to get 850-900 wickets and that record will stand for a very long time until we have a better murali.

I don't consider myself to be a racist or jealous, but I do believe that Murali chucks, and the laws have been fudged in a bizarre buckling to the racist accusation from the sub-continent.

Rob, I'm afraid that just because others are now getting away with similar straightening of the arm doesn't make it OK! I play a modest level of Sunday afternoon cricket on the village green, and I was amazed when one of the new (white) youngsters came on to bowl for us last weekend. He was clearly chucking, but no one uttered a word. Afterwards I asked some of the other players if they thought he was chucking, and the answer was "yes" they did. One mid-twenties club player said it is a growing problem, these kids can bowl properly, but since they can get away with chucking they do so to get a little more action on the ball.

Sorry Rob, but next time I'm umpiring and someone chucks, I'm going to call it a chuck!

The major reason behind calling Murali a chucker was the inability to play him. I would ask any of the person who calls him a chucker to play a club level match and use his action to get 3 wickets. If they could use it to their advantage then and only then they deserve to pass a comment on Murali. Racism is there everywhere. Even in his own country because he is a Tamil. But his answer was outstanding to everyone. 700 and counting with his wickets tally. No one can re-write it by calling his action chucking. In-fact Murali became famous because of this controversy. He is better than Bradman when it comes to bowling.

No wonder the number of 'Wisden cricketer of year' are given withing Australia and England. If cricket is played without racism...the game would have already produced a 100 players of the millenium. And it will happen soon as racism wont run a long way.

It is well known that many modern top flight bowlers, when their actions were analyzed, fell afoul of the old 'chucking' regulation. No one ever pointed fingers at them. It is Murali's misfortune that he is so successful and beguiling. It is also his 'misfortune' that he is brown-skinned. It is no coincidence that most of his detractors are Aussie provincials, a large sub-population well known for its racist values. The English are more world-wise so I am surprised to hear that the Essex man professed these ignorant thoughts. A few years back I was the receipt of a completely unexpected racist harangue by a white stranger while visiting Hyde Park in London. 'Ignorant moron', I thought. Same goes for that Essex guy.

And, by the way, Murali is not the only Tamil in the Sri Lanka dressing room. Russell Arnold, recently retired, is Tamil, too. Other contracted players who are not Sinhalese are Farveez Maharoof and T.M. Dilshan. Although the tone of Mr. Steen's article makes it sound as if minority cricketers are lucky to play for the Sri Lanka team, ethnicity is NOT a criterion for inclusion and never has been. To believe anything else is to have swallowed Tamil Tiger propaganda. Who cares about the ethnicity of a national player if he can win a match?

Well said Rob!

Want to add a couple of points.
Murali is not the only Tamil in the Sri Lankan dressing room. Russell Arnold is a Tamil too.

In addition to his cricket heroics, during his very rare spare time he has Murali is actively engaged in charity through his foundation, probably the first such an organization by a Sri Lankan sports star. After the Tsunami, Murali was tirelessly running around the island organizing and distributing aid to the affected.

Sometime back when asked by a journalist how he would like to be remembered, Murali said "as a good human being". Sorry Murali, we will not remember you as a "good human being", you are already "a great human being".

Mate, you're wrong. First of all, Barry Bonds HAS been found to have taken steroids. The MLB is just weak on enforcement. Secondly, a bigger frame means more power behind the ball, and that the ball will go further; hence more hits all the way over the fence. No-one denies Barry's ability. It's the percentage of LONG hits that is the problem. Thirdly, racism has nothing to do with Murali's detractors. Nothing. It's all about whether people believe he gets extra spin with that action of his. Personally, I believe he deserves his wickets, because he's THAT good. Many of us have long gotten over the "chucka" idea. We see that he is a great player, even if he goes past our beloved Warnie, that's ok. Let's stop playing those ridiculous "race" cards, eh? Well done Murali - and this from an Aussie.

A rejoinder to the joker who claimed that the chucking rule was amended to support Murali -
Shoab Akhtar's bouncer was supposed to be a chucked ball till such a time as TV replays proved his action identical to Brett Lee's. ICC liberalised the chucking law as soon as this was confirmed. Common sense says ICC have amended the law not to support Murali, but to support Brett Aussie Cheater Lee. After all, whoever heard of ICC taking action against Aussies for Graphite bats, squash balls, abusive language on the field of play (Glenn McGrath) et al ? If there is overwhelming evidence that Aussies are doing & would like to continue with something unethical, ICC will legalise it. If Aussies are not particular about repeating, Australia pockets world cups & the sneak trick used by Aussies is banned from further use. I am aware that this comment will be withheld for review, but not publishing these facts would tell me where your bias is.

Rob,

May I just congratulate you, on having the courage, knowledge, openness and the intelligence to write a piece like that.

Since the introduction of 'Smiling Assassin' on this beautiful game of cricket, I haven’t read a piece of journalism so refreshing and so heart-warming. I have seen this guy go through as much scrutiny as Tony Blair with Iraq, yet, he lost none of his sense of reality and zen like calmness. There was a great interview from him during Sri Lanka’s last visit to England with David Gower, when asked how he would like to be remembered as? He replied “I just like to be remembered as a good person who loved this game”. In the era of modern sportsmen with less ability than my nan who bask in any glory they can get their hands on, it is so refreshing to hear a guy (who has been more than a superstar) who just wants to be remembered as a ‘Person’.

People have and always will put him down; I believe most of these people are supporters of Shane Warne and Aussies. Don’t get me wrong, Shane is/was a brilliant bowler, but, when all his flaws (his drugs charge, adultery, etc) are forgotten by this goldfish-esk memory, Murali stands out miles ahead of everyone else as a Role Model, you want your kids to follow. Not only this guy is a cricketing genius for Sri Lanka, he has helped, bringing that country to be as good as the likes of England, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Windies, if not better. Being the only Tamil in that war-stricken country, he has created not only a history, he also is trying to bring the nation together as one.

This boy has been special; he has helped this game immensely by his big smile, that big spin, his hard work on and off the field, professionalism and above all his Charisma…I think, it is about time, people should give him the credit he so rightfully deserves.

Peace

Sesh

While it takes exceptional talent to hit a 100mph fast ball out of the park, let's not confuse the influential qualities of steroids and birth defects.

Steroids are known to improve reaction time and stamina. Otherwise nobody would have had a problem with Ben Johnson winning the 100m in 1988.

Murali's deformation is clearly a defect turned into a gift. While his gifts are undisputed, I do not like the fact that his gifts transpire into a breach of the original rules of Cricket. We bent our rules for his bent elbow. He has to bear the stigma of that change for the rest of his life.

Conversely, nobody attaches a stigma to the great basketballer Wilt Chamberlain for changing the rules of his game. The difference is that those rules were changed due to his sheet dominance - not because of a spineless ICC.

Wonderful and brave article.
Atlast someone, and here I must add more importantly a white journalist, has had the courage to write about racism and jealousy in the case of Muralitharan. I am not a Srilankan and so am neutral in this matter, but I have still to read an article in the English papers (incl Australian!!)that actually puts Murali's achievements above Shane Warne's. Not that it would matter to Murali, of course. One always hears about how Warne is the greatest spinner of all time. Statistically speaking, and that should be one of the most important criteria in sport, he isn't. He is the greatest acc. to the English because he has taken more wickets against them than other countries like India. I believe that the English like to put him up there so that atleast they can hide their ineptitude in Ashes matches behind this excuse i.e. 'we would have won the Ashes but for the best bowler in history'. One should always measure greatness not only on statistics but statistics in context. Shane warne himself once complained that Murali was getting his wickets against poor teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The article recently about numbers put paid to that(hopefully) Again I must labour the fact that Warne could not conquer India whereas there is no team that Murali hasn't won against (by which I mean performed well against) Also these so called lone rangers like Murali and Hadlee (who again never got the credit he deserved i.e. definitely greater than Lillee etc because of the sheer consistency of wickets) deserve more credit than people like Warne, McGrath and Lillee. It is all very well when the team is good but if one player is outstanding and the team is basically c**p then that player has to be considered the greater one. Cricket being a team sport, a players performance is partly the reault of the team support. For instance a bowler will be able to get more wickets cheaply if he is bowling with his side having scored 500 runs and if his side can also field and catch all the chances, including the wicketkeeper.(There is also the matter of being good(or bad ) at gamesmanship!). Similarly batsmen can score more freely and do well when they know that they are going out to bat with the score at 200 for 1 and that even if they fail the next few batsmen will definitely take the score to atleast 500. Similarly there is more pressure and consequently less success when the opposite is true. By this I am referring to the Australian batsmen and bowlers. There is this constant critiscism of other teams that they do not score as quiclky as Aus. but that is only because of the uncertainty that prevails in a team of generally below average performers. Put a Ponting in the Bangladesh side or for that matter a Warne and see if they can perform as well. I can safely say (!) that they would not.
I am going to wait and see if any Wisden or any other English magazine has the guts or the sense of righteousness to proclaim that Murali should be one of the 5 greatest cricketers of all time in place of some of the others in the previous list. Murali has acc. to me usurped the title of the Bradman of bowling from Hadlee.(I know people will disagree on both names, but I think that would be for the above reasons)

I found your 'instructive parallel' between Murali and Barry Bonds rather tenuous. They may both have attracted varying degrees of racism and jealousy. But beyond that their cases seem to be totally divergent. And, if I may daresay, it seems unfair to lump Murali with Barry Bonds (unfair to Murali, that is)

(1) Barry Bonds was one of the many sportspersons (of different disciplines AND different racial backgrounds) at the centre of the BALCO drugs-in-sports scandal. I relied on info found by wiki-ing/googling on 'barry bonds', 'BALCO', 'Greg Anderson' etc. It is speculated that Bonds used designer steroids at a time when there was no testing in baseball. Bonds attributes his improved physique and power to bodybuilding, nutrition etc..
From whatever little I read, I could not find any angle of racism or jealousy in the Bonds' scandal. That those could be the motives for the two award-winning journalists who exposed the scandal thereby implicating multi-racial, multi-disciplinary sportsmen seems a long-shot. (No, I am not insinuating that award-winning journos are angels)

(2) Worst case, Barry Bonds: He may be a drug cheat. His trainer has already been indicted and has spent time in jail. Worst case, Murali: He has a freakish action, but he is no cheat. That brings me to 'gut feel'.

(3) Every keen sports observer may be entitled to his or her gut feel about any aspect of the sport. I (like Rob, I guess) may feel that Murali is a classy fighter who has a dodgy action that has evolved naturally and who is a joy to watch in his pomp. But some other cricket lover may say, "Murali? Chucker. Period" Both are just that - opinions. Both have their merits. Someone like Murali, who undoubtedly operates on the fringes of the sport's rules AND with such felicity is bound to generate extreme opinions. And that may not necessarily have anything to do with racism or jealousy.

I am thoroughly disappointed with the number of commenters here who assume racism must be the driver for anyone who thinks Murali’s action is questionable. For example, I don’t recall anyone (here or otherwise) claiming Clive Lloyd’s decision to report James Kirtley’s action during a Test at Kandy (and not Murali’s action) to be racially motivated. When Billy Bowden and Aleem Dar reported Johan Botha (in his one and only test to date), would anyone even think Dar had a racial motive?

Murali is clearly an amazing talent, and apparently an amazing person to know. However, it is my belief that every cricketer (at every level) when bowling should keep their arm as straight as they possibly can (regardless of race!!!), and certainly not intentionally use any elbow angle/straightening for benefit. Perhaps Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar pass this criterion, but Murali (and Botha for that matter) clearly do not. Murali with a straight arm would still take hundreds of Test wickets

Posted by: Ashkar 2 days, 2 hours ago

Spot on!!! why dont some understand that guys like donald and mcgrath flex their arms more than murali?? And there aer some who doubt murali cos of his wickets against Bangla and Zim. Well mates he is gonna finish with 1000 wickets and then the Bangla wickets become irrelevant. Doesnt anyone compare muralis record against India in India while warne was thoroughly humilitated over there???

........
well for the record Murali's record V India in Inida reads 31 wickets in 8 matches @ 39.58, while warne reads 34 wickets in 9 matches @ 43.11...not too much of a difference !!!And yes, Murali maybe a good bowler but he is not a great bowler. He has almost 50% of his wickets vs Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, while warne has about 20 vs. Ban and Zim, which proves that warne played and got wickets against stronger and better opposition.
I was really interested in a post by Mr. Chetan where he has branded aussies as cheats,racists and says that they win because of using illegal means. Well,the post clearly highlighted both racism and jealousy.
And btw. Mr chetan, Brett Lee was asked to work on his action by the ICC. Please check on certain facts. And for those, who argue that other bowlers also bend their arms beyond the permissible limit as found out by the ICC before they amended the chucking law, well surprisingly ICC did not test any bowler, but studied their deviation from television replays. I am not sure how they managed to measure the degree of inflexion on television replays..If anyone knows, could you help me understand, because i thought that you needed toa bio mechanics test to measure the degree of inflexion of a bowlers arm.

Anyone who claims that Murali is the only one with flexion, and that he uses it to generate extra turn is either ignorant of basic scientific truths or simply bigoted.

Fact 1: it is physically impossible for any object to have zero flexion under rotation. If you swing a metal bar fast enough you will be able to measure a degree of flexion. Now it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see what rammifications this has on the human elbow. The truth is that the elbow flexes even without the bowler willfully trying to "chuck".

Such logical thought, without even mention of Murali, leads to the conclusion that the laws of cricket as they stood were obsolete. Hence the rules were changed to limit flexion to an amount which was deemed invisible with the naked eye.

Fact 2: Muralitharan bowled with a metal brace on his elbow in England, in an effort to show to the non-believers that he is not a chucker. This brace did not allow any elbox flexion. Murali bowled.

Result: He achieved the same amount of spin he does in game situations, with both the regulation off break as well as the doosra.

What does this show to us? That the flexion that is undoubtedly there in Murali's action (it is around 11 degrees I believe) comes solely from the high-speed rotation of his arm. The flexion does not, in any way, add to extra spin, or give him any advantage. Why does Murali have such high flexion? Because the speed of his arm revolutions is very very high. In fact when he was tested it was discovered that it was around the arm speed of Shabbir Ahmed the Pakistani fast bowler who was also tested.

Fact 3: Murali has a congenital birth defect that prevents him from straightening his arm. He does not bowl witha bent arm out of choice, nor does this give him any advantage. Someone suggested that bowling with a bent arm should be outlawed. Well what would the ICC do then? Ban a player for a deformity that is in no way his fault?

Any person who weighs the facts can come to the obvious conclusion that Murali has been unfairly ostracised throughout his career. Why other bowlers are not tested periodically is beyond me. Surely it would only be a positive influence to the game if every bowler had to pass a test every year or couple of years.

So why is it almost solely Murali, again and again? Jealousy, racism whatever it is, it doesn't matter: it must stop. The ICC should establish a standard test for every bowler. Why don't they? I suspect they fear some of our bowling champions from all over the world have a high degree of flexion.

I am sick to death of hearing about the Big Bad Aussies. Give me a break. They win because of a strong self-belief and a willingness to work on every facet of cricket in all conditions. Australia won the World Cup three times in a row simply because they believed in themselves and never gave an inch.

And stop believing everything you read .. Brett Lee has a perfect action. Smoothest delivery I've ever seen. Glenn McGrath? Yeah right. He's 100% legal, and now the greatest fast bowler in history. Well deserved. Shane Warne - yes, he is the greatest spinner in history. Murali would get that same respect, if he'd modified his action like others have had to. But he didn't. Sure, he's a nice guy, but a whiner. He needed to fight back and go to Australia and prove himself. That's what the Poms did. They failed, but they tried, and they'll be better for it, with future stars like Cook & Co.

Stop whining and playing that ridiculous race card. It's just not necessary and undeserving of a place in this discussion. Murali is a great cricketer, but it's his own fault he attracts ridicule.

While I'm at it. Can we PLEASE fix the ICC ??

I admire Murali as a person.He is an amazing asset to Srilanka and a great advertisement for a troubled country.Having said that , I must say that criticism of his action does not necessarily mean racism.
I know that this business of "degrees" is a joke.I think instinctively you know that something is wrong when he bowls.We also know that the rules were amended to accomodate him and other bowlers like Shoaib Akthar who in my opinion should be allowed nowhere near a cricket field.It speaks of the dominance of Asian money in running the game.
Murali will never be in my "hall of all time greats"(as though anyone cares}.I feel a lot of his wickets have been taken in the sub-continent, with liberal helping from Bangladeshi batsmen.
If people are critical it is because his action is suspect.It has nothing to do with him being a tamilian or from srilanka.
p.s.I am tamilian

How many cricketers in the world have had the guts to stand up and be counted in adverse times. I salute you Murali for all that you have stood for... Dignity when Ross Emerson and Daryl Hair were spitting venon.... Courage when Kandy was ravaged by Tsunami....

Lets not compare Warne and Murali... Warne never operated alone... He had McGrath, Kasprowicz et al at the other end while our Kandy man was single handedly responsible for taking Lanka to the top.

We look forward to the day when Murali takes his 1000th test wicket. From that day onwards, people will talk of Murali first and then talk about Don Bradman....

Keep it going Kandy Man...

Cricket is certainly not to be judged by racist biased nad poor-quality umpires. Great umpires like Dikkie Bird and david Sheppherd had never taken action or questioned Murali's bowling action. It's just a few low-quality, jealous, racist individuals who had tried in vain to stop blosomming of the genius in Murali.
Murali's case was not the only instance the same umpires involved brought the game of cricket into dis-repute by actions that were obviously triggered by racism and bias.
When Murali was called for chucking in one of the one-day games that immediately followed the controversial boxing-day test in Australia, he tested the umpire Ross Emerson by bowling leg-spinners. Emerson proved how biased he was, when he called even some leg-spinners by Murali as "no-balls". This incident was recorded by a video camera by then- Sri Lankan coach Dav Whatmore.
It's not the umpires but God, nature or karma that gives the ultimate judgement, for any matter, including cricket. Today those umpires are beginning to suffer the consequences of their acts. Biased and jealous critics will also get what they deserve.
For Murali, all of us know how god, nature and/ or karma is treating him. They are and will be helping him to become the best and gain the reputation he rightly deserves.

Atul Bhogle writes that Murali releasing the ball from back of the wrist is illegal. According to the rules there is nothing illegal about wrist movements or shoulder rotations and in fact everytime a 'wrong-un' is bowled ball gets released from the back of the wrist.I notice that in the correspondence so far Murali's fixed flexion deformity of the right elbow has not been highlighted and its this deformity which exagerates the illusion of bending the elbow.
Most critics of Murali comes from Australia where winning is all that matters however it eventuates and history records all the mean,dirty sledging started there.(remember Mcgrath/Sarwan incident - its hard to take when boot is in the other foot)
Although the criticism of Muralis achievements being against weaker opposition should be buried after the recent cricinfo article, it will not settle in Australia. They have such short memory. Remember Mathew Hayden's world batting record against Zimbabwe when he beat Lara's record over England and fortunately Lara regained it(deservedly) again over England.
Whatever arguments one may come up with there is no dispute that Murali is a much better sporting personality and a role model for the younger generation than Shane Warne

I cannot believe that there is yet so much debate over Murali's action. I had thought that it is now well accepted that many international cricketers flex their elbows even more than Murali does while releasing the ball at or about the same speed of arm rotation. Furthermore, did not Murali bowl with an arm brace to prevent any elbow flexion and did he not obtain the same prodigious turn as when bowling without the brace?

I wonder what folk like ZubinW have to say to all of this? Perhaps, they'd still want to say that Murali is a chucker.

If Murali is a chucker, then so must be the rest. What's sauce for the goose cannot be something else for the gander.

Or, are we to hear that the ICC created the fiction that other international bowlers had similar or greater flexion in order to please the Asian members? Get off it. The innuendo that the ICC pampers the Asian lobby is just sickening.

The bottom line is that all of these bowlers have now been extensively tested under scientific methods, and the verdict is clear... Murali does NOT gain an unfair advantage over the other bowlers in terms of arm flexion. End of story.

I wish that people would look at the evidence. Murali has the most analysed action in the history of cricket and he has been exonerated of the offence of straightening his arm over and over again. It is an illusion caused by the deformity to his arm (caused by a childhood illness). The idea that the laws were changed to allow Muralis action to be legal is as laughable as it is false. The laws were in fact changed because virtually every modern test bowler that was analysed was found to be chucking! The fast bowlers were the biggest culprits, with (amongst many others) Brett Lee and even Glenn McGrath found to br straightening their arms by up to 10 degrees. As to comparisons with the grubby blonde Australian; Murali's bowling average, strike rate, economy rate, number of 5/10 wkt hauls are all much better than Warne's. He has won matches single handed against all the test nations on all types of wickets and Chaminda Vaas aside without the formidable back-up bowling that Warne has had. Once the great man passes the 708 mark he will rightly be the greatest bowler we have ever seen and to my mind the second greatest cricketer. We should appreciate him now while he is still playing and shut down the critics with their (mostly) suspect motives.

Jermaine Lawson of the West Indies has had his career derailed after singlehandedly destroying the Australians in a test match and his action subsequently reported. In short, Lawson has taken the steps required of him in order to resume his career, inspite of the consequences in his apparent diminished abilities. True enough, injuries have played a role in his delayed return but many have come to realise that with a remodeled action he is not as potent a bowler as he once was. The Caribbean reaction has been one of acceptance, with Tony Cozier pointing out in an article that Lawson's suspect action was observed as early as the under-19 level and as a people, we did not blame England or Australia for Lawson's bowling deficiencies.

It is quite likely that Bonds' record will eventually be overhauled by A-Rod (Rodriguez of Hispanic origin). The eagerness with which this is awaited is equal only to the apparent dread surrounding the possibility of Murali overtaking Warne's record. Therefore, this is not a 'we vs them' issue, but simply one where prevailing rules must be applied and not doctored to pamper to feelings of inferiority (and in my view, fear of alienating the Asian economic - read $ - power in cricket)! Just as Bonds is tainted by suspected drug use so too is Murali by a questionable (and a very visible one at that) bowling action.

I'm sorry, but 'bad boy' Shane will always be my champion spin bowler... well until he's overtaken by another whose talent is not influenced by questionable physical transgressions.

The suggestion that anyone who doubts murali and his action does so because they are racist is ridiculous and insulting in the extreme. Not to mention painfully tiresome.

It is a simplistic argument that refuses to take account of the true source of people's feelings on the matter.

No doubt there is a tiny section of the cricketing world that dislikes murali because of his race, and that attitude is wrong and ignorant, but there are also many hundreds of thousands of others who pay no attention to the colour of his skin, but can see that his action is diabolical and highly suspicious. Are we supposed to praise someone that we view as a cheat, based on their nationality?

I can only speak for myself, but the bowler I respect most is Curtley Ambrose, and I loved the W.I. pacemen of past decades such as Garner, Holding, Marshall and Croft etc, not to mention some of the Pakistani greats such as Imran Khan, Waqar, and Wasim. But I cannot stand murali because he is a cheat, a whinger, and he lacks heart. He'll give his wicket away rather than face fast bowling and won't tour unless the crowds are nice to him. This is why I have no respect for him, if it was based on racism then I doubt I would have such high regard for the other players from different countries that I mentioned.

Regarding the points raised by several people that if murali were an Aussie/Englishman he would have got away with it ... this is laughable. He would not have made it past grade cricket in Australia with an action like that, he would have had to remedy his action in the lower levels or he would certainly have never made it to any Australian state or national team. The fact that people such as rishi make comments like 'Shaun Tait's action...that's ridiculously obvious chucking. But, he gets away because he is an aussie.' just shows the limited mentality of some people involving themselves in this discussion ... how can you chuck and bowl round arm at the same time?!?

Given the vitriol that spews forth from the sub continent regarding Warne whenever this subject is raised, it is obvious that many people hate Warne on the basis of his race ... not everyone likes him and that's just the way it is, and Warne's fans seem to have accepted that. But why is there this agenda that everyone must like and respect murali? And that anyone who thinks his cheating should not be tolerated must therefore be racist? It is a ridiculous assesment.

All these bigots complaining about Murali's action. Has it ever occurred to you people that Murali is a spinner and not a fast bowler. It doesn't matter how much you bend your elbow the spin comes from your wrist, the only time you can complain about a spinner's elbow is if he continuously is bowling an arm ball. All these so called know it alls of cricket on this comment page like "krishna" couldn't tell the difference between Shane Warne's flipper and zooter, which is all just media hype much like Murali's action. In my opinion every fast bowler chucks and can get away with it because it is well hidden and can't be seen by the naked eye until you analyze it. When you see Murali's action his deformity shows because his elbows loops not bends there is a difference people, open your eyes.

None but the lunatic fringe seriously consider racism the reason for adverse comments about Murali's action any more, because as the more rational have pointed out his biggest defenders are Australian / English (Bradman, Botham et al) and his biggest critic (Bedi) subcontinental. Plus most of the anti-Murali commentators also leveled the same allegations at Akhtar, Lee, Botha and Kirtley.

But the writer leaves on the table "jealousy" and mentions Warne's soon to be eclipsed record.

Facts: Murali was a nobody when Hair called him. Hair did everything possible to resolve the matter off the field, as did the other umpires who expressed concerns after Sharjah and before the 1995-96 tour. And Murali was strongly defended by Warne's teammates, particularly Steve Waugh (and Warne himself).

There's a difference between thinking "Murali throws everything" and "Murali chucked his 2002-spec doosra." I can't imagine anyone watching the last AUS tour of SL disagreeing. But that doesn't mean he's got hundreds of wickets legally - just that he's a bowler who has an action that deteriorates past the limit at times.

Jude you are bang on.

The problem is that Murali's deformity creates an illusion and to us it appears that he bends his elbow more than any other bowler. But in reality, his elbow bends by 15 degrees, which is the same for 99% of bowlers. So in other words, 99% of international bowlers are chuckers, but because no other bowler has the same deformity as Murali, their actions go unnoticed. Murali does bend his elbow as much as any other bowler. But that is not what we see when we watch him bowl. What we see is the deformity in his elbow, which creates the illusion that he is throwing.

Yet, most people ignore these scientific findings and consider themselves expert in a subject they know almost nothing about. We cannot always believe what we see. Our vision has limitations.
And you do need a high frames per second camera to properly analyze a bowlers action.

There was a study done by biomechanical experts during a champions trophy tournament and their conclusion was that 99% of bowlers bend their elbow by 15 degrees or less.

So the rules were not changed to accomodate Murali. The rules were changed to accomadate 99% of international bowlers.

I enjoyed the article, and appreciated the analogy of Murali and Bonds, even if it was a slightly poor one. With Bonds, it is jealousy through more direct cheating, whereas it should be remembered that Murali - whatever peoples' views - DOES have an arm defect. I think jealousy is more important here, rather than actual racism. For example, people resent Murali's wickets, but they also resent Shoaib's and Lee's pace. Let's laud this guy for being one of the most pleasurable bowlers to watch, rather than denigrate his startling achievements.

One thing though, the reference to Sachin Vaja ("Containing my anger, I suggested it was a generational thing. I’ve certainly never heard an under-30 utter the c- word in this context. Look at Sachin Vaja, the Three Caps offspinning stalwart newly contracted to the county club. Murali is his idol. He would not have developed that wristy mode of delivery otherwise, much less out-bowl Saqlain Mushtaq when Essex 2nd XI met their Sussex counterparts last month. And nobody has batted an eyelid at him."

After just reading this on my return from holiday, I looked at the scorecard from that game. Vaja took 8-0-43-0 and 10-0-83-3. In contrast, Saqlain took 23-4-58-2 and 8-2-23-1. In what way did Vaja outbowl Saqlain?!

There is a purblind aspect to the Steen position (defend Murali, condemn Bedi). The fact that all bowlers are shown to have some degree of flexion in their delivery (when analysed with ultra-slow motion techniques) does not invalidate the old intuitive notion of the difference between bowling and chucking. As a previous writer on the other thread pointed out, almost all bowlers (even those with high measured flexion) base their action on the classical attempt to bowl by rolling as straight arm from the shoulder. You can see the difference between this and what Murali does. And, speaking from early experience, as a boy I had a really fizzy fast off break that had to be coached out of me because the excess spin came from the javelin-like motion of my hand, which made possible much more tangential purchase on the ball than you can get with a straightish and higher arm. So I never took 1,000 wickets with it. But I do know the difference. And so do you.

Bedi's comments on Murrali is like when we can't shed old theories because we are so much attached to those traditional beliefs that it looks like a defeat for us. Ancient people thought that the earth is stationary and sun and all other planets and stars are moving around us. Still we feel the same way but scientific experiments have proven this otherwise. It may be an illusion to see like that. If believe in stationary earth we would be like small children. Therefore according to the experiments done it must be an illusion to see Murali as a chucker. The other thing I should say is cricketers with tall stature have advantage in fast balling. Is it relevant to say that you have an advantage due to high level of growth hormone? We should think all of this evidences before judging any player.