Imagine Murali to be a veLLaikkaaran (Aus / Eng), how many of Jury from crookinfo wud have supported him over Warne?
Printable View
Imagine Murali to be a veLLaikkaaran (Aus / Eng), how many of Jury from crookinfo wud have supported him over Warne?
sathya, the answer to that is that veLLaikArans and Warne supporters here will loftily claim that no Chucker will ever be allowed by ECB, ACB etc to play international cricket. voluntary-A ban paNNiduvangaLAmAm :-)
(e.g) James Kirtley(periya thillAlangadi, ivaru mattum intl cricket continue paNNi irundhA, England innEram #1 enna #0 enna #-1234kE pOyiurkkumAm but ethics mEla uLLa paRRAla, England indha vAippai volundaryA nazhuva vittAngaLAmAm) is a prime example for this.
avaingaLA oru rule pOttukka vENdiyadhu - thangaLukku edhellAm sAdhagamA irukkO adhai vechu mathavangaLai madakkaradhu. adhe thillAlangadi velaiya mathavanga paNNA, aiyo kolRAnga-nnu sound vuda vENdiyadhu. You know that is a succesful formula be it cricket or politics :-)
yes boss! Lots of ejjamples for veLLaikkaran nErmai - jellygate, lever, drugs, underarm, sydney 2008, waugh warne fines, paanding turning umpire..... EvvaLo uthamanunga!
Elaam Serithaan... ithellaam ethukku intha thread la sollikittu?Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Because pulI seems to be claiming that Warne being unanmiously selected in Cricinfo All Time XI is a sign of "dharmam mIndum vellum"
thambi Ramakrishna, ellaa threadulayum digressionE illaama perfectaa Odudhaa (except NT thread)? Oru timepasskudhaan
Plum/Sathya, why are you starting this all over again ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sathya_1979
What is the point of 'agreeing to disagree' if you want to keep harping on the point that Murali's problems are only due to a white conspiracy?
It is not at all surprising to us (PB and me) and you (Sathya and you) that Murali is not a unanimous choice. So we are in agreement about this too :-) Only that we have different reasons for thinking why that happens to be the case.
yaar naanga. nalla kadhaiyA irukkE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Murali oru koot bowlernu mattum oththukittA paththAdhu, avar oru odukkappatta, nasukkappatta, vanjikkappattavar-nu oththukkaNumnu neenga dhaan adam pudikkureenga.
Let me leave out this action problem (classical versus 'offbeat') and come to a more sober example.
None of us have seen Sobers play. ellAm kELvi gnAnam dhaan. Kallis has more runs, centuries and wickets (?) than Sobers. They are direct competitors for the allrounder slot in the alltime XI and no-one has a problem with Sobers being picked.
avinga race mattum vice-versa -vA irundhuchchA, cricinfo tharisAyirukkum.
idhai sonnA naan Macaulay adivarudi 'ngra range-ku solluveenga
btw Macaulay did not say most those things that our hot blooded nationalists claim he did. That is a panjAyathu for a different day.
Feeyaar, here's my reading
The committee to pick this XI had Chappell Bro. One of the reports explicitly mention that Chappell would be disappointed about not being able to push Miller over Akram in the first XI. To me, that speaks volumes of the process.
it is a committee and there presumably were discussions - here's how I see it happening - Chappell making forceful cases for his nominees and losing out on removing Sachin. He then pushes Warne mercilessly and pushes for snubbing Murali - the asian reps are javagalised and just keep their mouth shut about a unanimous decision.
(And one is not sure if wadekar isn't a classicist too)
Over and above, cricinfo is known to rig expert results too - rahul bhattacharya complained in a previous listing exercise. As to why people don't make more noise about it, well, these are retired cases which can do with a small cut, no?
So I feel that this was an agenda driven exercise to artificially prop up Warne. Well, the cricketing world is more or less equally divided on warne vs murali so I refuse to believe that there can be unanimous selection of Warne as a natural happening.
That very fact leads to suspicion - if for instance there was a closer contest even say 9-3, I wouldn't have got suspicion. 12-0 seems too rigged to be true.
That is my grouse - puLi then raised it here as some sort of vindication on classicists' stance on murali - to which I had to respond because this is rigging and then using the rigging to prove a point.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Plum, call me naive but I have a question: Miller viLayAdi pAthurukeengaLA? And btw I reckon Wasim Akram to be the best bowler I've seen on a cricket field.
indha all time XI-la idhu enakku badA bEjAr. I mean, I have seen Gambhir much more than Gavaskar. But I know it would be ridiculous to base my conclusion only on what I have seen. At the same time I am willing to go only thus far based on others' opinions, hearsay and statistics.
Anyway prachanaikku varuvOm:
Since you gave your version, here is mine:
I don't believe the world is as evenly divided as you think it is, regarding Murali versus Warne. As I've said earlier too, I think, many many people have been helplessly gagged. They are forced to be politely silent and look the other way. edhirkatchikkaaran (racisaum allegers) paarthA enna ninaippAn.
But when picking a World XI, where you are (under the delusion that you are) free from such compulsions, it seems screaming obvious that Murali would not be picked by most people. edhirkatchikkaaran (say Mars XI) paarthA enna ninaippAn.
That wouldnt be the case if a certain Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar or Brian Charles Lara are in the panel. enakku Chappell karugara vaasanai nallA mookkai thoLaikkudhu.
I really dont believe Duleep Mendis inwardly believes Murali chucks and uses this opportunity to express his true feelings on chucking - do you believe so? Some goodhal is clearly involved here.
Wasnt Mendis part of the board in some capacity when they fought against Murali being victimised?
Great. idhai thAn dharmam mIndum vellum-nu solluvAnga.Quote:
As I've said earlier too, I think, many many people have been helplessly gagged.
And the judge probing match fixing in pakistan clearly said that he is leaving Akram off the hook despite proof being available of wrong-doing because he was a fan!
Is alleged chucking, which is only one interpretation of the laws, a bigger offence than proven match fixing?
IIRC Mendis was the tour manager in the '95 tour of Australia and was part of the fight against the alleged victimization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
btw did it come down to a clear either-or vote? i.e. one slot that Murali-Warne were contesting for? Perhaps everyone wanted Warne and not everyone wanted Murali and the sets are not mutually exclusive. And that's how the votes were counted.
If so, you would find the results less surprising wouldn't you?
Oh is it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Apple Orange 'mbAingaLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Murali thangamaana raasaa 'nu oorukkE theriyum. I have said here a ton of times that he is a likeable guy and my disagreement is only with the spineless system that has caved in and allowed him to bowl the way he does.
If it is indeed the case that Akram cheated and he gets banned for it, I am only going to feel glad about it. I have no loyalty to speak of in these things. But I will still think the ball that got Allan Lamb in the '92 WC final is the one of the best balls that I have ever seen in a game of cricket.
This is not a fanboy squabble. :-)
Anyway, if you insist then the proper comparison would be to make the final comparion of 'greatness' consideration only the acceptable performances. That is:
- excluding fixed matches of Akram
- excluding non doped matches of Warne
- excluding chucked balls of Murali......oops, that would be his entire career, no? :lol2:
Yes.Quote:
IIRC Mendis was the tour manager in the '95 tour of Australia and was part of the fight against the alleged victimization.
btw did it come down to a clear either-or vote? i.e. one slot that Murali-Warne were contesting for? Perhaps everyone wanted Warne and not everyone wanted Murali and the sets are not mutually exclusive. And that's how the votes were counted.
If so, you would find the results less surprising wouldn't you?
Can you prove that feeyaar?
How do you prove that Murali chucked(even according to your own rules rather than ICC's) every ball of his career? Isnt that mere perception?
Yes. My perception. Just that it was shared by many and I allege would have been shared by a whole lot more people if only they were not gagged by the unfortunate developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Prove? According to what yardstick? According to something like the ingenious angle rule that ICC came up with :lol2:
To call for 'greater inclusiveness', 'application to consider taking a lenient stand in view of the greater contributions to the game' etc. is one thing but are you saying his action is clean as a whistle? Come on now.
When place is given, you grab religious establishment-A?
Prove according to your own yardstick.
That is to say, define your own yardstick. Go watch every match of his ball-by-ball. Then confirm that every such ball was chucked according to your own yardstick.
Then you can say that chucking constituted his own career.
My yardstick is me. Whatever I feel is a chuck is. And I have not seen a single non chuck ball (save those legbreaks I linked last time we discussed). In all his offbreaks, his arm is bent and that is the reason he is able to use his wrist the way he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
I'd've watched about 10% of the balls he bowled in his career. And if the other 90% had been radically different I guess I'd've heard (idhukkum proof kEtturaadheenga). So I can reasonanly conclude that according to my yardstick he was a perma-chucker.
A.Ars to Sivam: Hey, I already told you all this man.
What's next, Shoaib Akthar's action is clean too?
Warne was fined for interaction with bookie and supplying info (u never know the truth on what was the agreement / info passed / amount exchanged etc), also banned for 1 yr for using banned substance.
We shud exclude his career as well, right? I mean u never know how many matches he used perf enhanced drugs / interacted with bookies; similar to the allegations against Murali's action which atleast was cleared by the governing body's "Experts"
I am not interested in Akthar.
Yes, according to your yardstick Murali chucks, Agreed. But you are not ICC. I dont care if a consensus was manufactured - rulesnA rules dhAn. ippOdhaikku nAnga solRadhu dhAn rules. kattubadiyAgalainA, apramA nInga vandhu mAthikkOnga. Infact, if Eng/Aus regain power, they'll annul Murali's records in retrospect. Let's hope it doesnt happen in my lifetime.
idhAnE vENAngaradhu? Why such snootish, I gave you pOnA pOgudhunnu place reactions?Quote:
When place is given, you grab religious establishment-A?
The place is rightfully ours. We took it.
Yes, sathya. Good point.
How can you prove that Warne used drugs only when he was caught. That puts in the cloud all performances previous to the time he was apprehended. And the match fixing - ACB mazhuppufied that he sold only weather info. Who knows the truth - because ACB didnt let ICC inquire it. What did they h ave to hide?
The weak kneed governing body which knows all its money is coming from Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by sathya_1979
sathya, you know your arguments are right on the face of it, but you don't yourself believe the content of what you are saying. It was a pure logical rebuttal to my post, that is all. Do you really find your parallels convincing, is the question.
Of course. Do you really really believe that ICC's the last word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
When you want ICC is the holy governing body supreme court equivalent. When you don't like it, the ICC is a bunch of white racist, self-serving thugs.
If not for this fact, a lot of autocratic, western powers serving rules would have been introduced and even existing rules misinterpreted in their favour even more consistently than now(powerla illAmalEyE, they are brazenly interpreting rules in their favour)Quote:
The weak kneed governing body which knows all its money is coming from Asia.
So yeah I am not so morally agitated at rules being created to suit Asian needs(actually, the asian powers have been inefficient in manipulating the system, but adhu vera vishayam)
ippOvE ipdi(Crhis broad etc) irukkAngannA, full power irundhA ennenna seivAnga. Arent you glad that those guys arent in power? I mean, atleast Asians are dumb enough not to twist things to their favour as much as these guys.
Plum, as I said sathya, I bow to this as a smart rebuttal rather than as a counterpoint which you genuinely feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Nope. I see much less 'twisting in favor' than you allege about Eng/Aus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
No, it is quite clear. The ICC rules on chucking are in Murali's favour but mostly the other rules are interpreted by Chris Broads and the relevant thugs constantly in white powers' favour. If you dont accept this, you are either blind or deliberately overlooking this. I will keep writing against the ICC for this aspect but atleast some aspects have been set right and Chucking is one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
The ICC is mostly a bunch of self-serving, western thugs balanced by a self-serving set of Sub-continental thugs. The sub-continental thugs are crude and dont have the nous to rig the whole system in their favour at all levels. The other side has lost out on financial control, and on related matters but still controls the interpretation of rules with the help of Chris Broads and is running its writ there.
This is the reality.
I dont take either side but I am glad that chucking rules were made appropriate thanks to the shift in power. Else, 1998lEyE Murali's career would have ended and that would have been a blot on Cricket, the game's fair name.
Let me put it another way. Waeld XI captain can say:
kaNNugaLaa naalaiku Mars kooda match irukku, I want you on your best behavior:
Wasim, no ball scratching, match throwing (rendu post-la idhai established fact range-ku aakkiteenga !)
Warney, say no to drugs
Murali, hmm...you will field in long on
A rock and a hard place 'mbAingaLE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
If the ICC rules of the time permit him, what is your problem? For all you know, everyone other than Murali might be chucking as per Mars rules :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
(That is a profounder statement than it looks)
saNdaila indha post-ai padikka vittuttEn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Kood.
dhuddu vandhA ICC enna vENaalum permit paNNuvaan. adhukkaaga enakku indigestion varakkoodaadhunnu edhirpaarka mudiyumAQuote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Could be :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
aanaa naan Martian illaiyE :poke:
Prabhu, more than individual's beliefs, the laws of he governing body is important (For me). What I feel about Murali or Warne, nobody here knows :)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
My arguments is based on the rules and judgements based on these rules by the supreme law board of Cricket - The ICC.
Similar to somebody's hatred against somebody else - enakku thappunu thONalai, adhanaala kolai senjEn doesn't hold (except if proven as an act of self-defence).
Regarding ur post on we taking sides with ICC or opposing as per our convenience - We opposed ICC mainly WRT sledging and bad behavior by Aus / Eng. When the rule is out there for everyone, the sore point is it does not punish everyone equally. That's the grouse. If they act fair against the likes of Mcgrath, Ponting, S Broad etc, prachanayE illayE!
http://www.espncricinfo.com/legends-...rogram=1048321
Shane Warne in Legends of cricket.
synonymous with Maradona... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
Being an aggressive cricketer,he had to show his aggressiveness by his control with the ball, unlike the fast bowlers who could steam in with a bouncer. Thats really amazing - venting out aggression with control.
:notworthy:
Super :notworthy:.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajithfederer
Also, read about a month back that Warne got selected in an All-Time Ashes XI selected by the English and Aussie fublic. idhula enna periya vishayamgareengala, angedhaan vaikkarom twist-u. He polled more votes than Don Bradman. eppudi :twisted:.
A British Newspapere has (predominantly) Brits doing the Warne vs Murali; Murali Chucks routine
A number of british folks batting for Murali, and some wonderful points made.
Regardless of which side you are on the debate, I am sure you'll learn new things that mitigate against your beliefs.
It really is a battle of beliefs is my takeaway.
In the last week, I have seen a lot that cures me of overwhelming conviction on Western prejudice. Add this to that.
England, ennai mannichurunga. unga nAtlaiyum nallavanga irukkAnga :-)