The importance of being one Muthiah "Magic" Murali

[PARAMASHIVAN]

statistics say that he is the best bowler ever. Except australians everyone will accept this fact.

http://www.cricinfo.com/sri-lanka-v-...ry/468426.html

Yah Ithu already therinja vishayum Aiche

[Plum]

Glad to see some points made in mainstream media now.
Like, for a long time in the net, I was the only commenter talking about his record against England, and that his good record against Bangal and Zim is offset by Warne's record against England. I never saw this argument in mainstream media until recently in Cricinfo.

Basically, I would even argue that an English/SA lineup against good spin is as weak as a Zim/Ban lineup. The Zim/Ban argument against Murali is really a straw man.

Regards chucking, I am all for changing rules to suit genius. Rules exist for games not the other way around. If the game is enriched by Murali's genius, how does it matter that according to your archaic rules, he chucks?(not granting that he chucks, but even assuming he does)

Lets look at this way. Suppose Murali is chucking, then there are two possibilities
1) Nobody else is able in future to do the same and bowl as well as him
2) There is a multitude of people who follow him and are able to replicate his feat

If (1) happens, we are really talking of a unique genius, whose feats cant be replicated even by bowlers who can replicate his chucking action. In which case, Murali is an unique talent to be celebrated
If (2) happens, then my take is that, if everyone can do it, and it adds variety to the team(Doosra certainly does - a world in which off spinners are toothless is not going to lead to great Cricket anyway), then what are we complaining about? It becomes a skill to master.

It just needs a shift in perspective as to which is important - archaic rules or bringing in skills into the game which arent really unfair. Afterall, without the Doosra, an offspinner today is really ineffective giving Batsmen a huge advantage in an already batsmen dominated game.
So, 15 degree, 10 degree whatever. A skill that adds value to the game without significantly altering the batsmen-bowler balance is to be welcomed into the game.

[PARAMASHIVAN]

Nobody could have done it betterMurali was top of the world on the field and classy off i


Years from now, it will become one of those where-were-you questions. There must be thousands of Indians who remember what they were doing when Sunil Gavaskar late-cut Ijaz Faqih at the Motera Stadium, just as legions of Pakistanis will recall the moment Ramiz Raja stared at the Melbourne sky and positioned himself under a skier from Richard Illingworth. Sri Lankans already have one such moment, at the Gaddafi Stadium in 1996, but this one ranks right up there. The perfect exit for the country's greatest cricketer. Even the denouement was appropriate - c M Jayawardene, b M Muralitharan for the 77th and final time.

A couple of years ago, at a function at the Tamil Union Club in Colombo, Chandra Schaffter spoke to some of us at length about its history and the role it had played in Sri Lanka's cricket. From Sir Donald Bradman's visit in 1948, through innumerable brilliant innings played by Mahadevan Sathasivam, to the riots of 1983, there was little that Schaffter's memory didn't dredge up. After evoking yesteryear's greats, he said: "Then, of course, in the early 1990s, Murali came down from Kandy." He didn't need to say more.

The modern history of Sri Lankan cricket is merely an extension of Murali's career. Aravinda de Silva's class and Arjuna Ranatunga's pugnaciousness were in evidence in the '90s, and Sanath Jayasuriya's devastating hitting illuminated a decade from '96. Chaminda Vaas was Tonto to Murali's Lone Ranger for most of his career, while Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara carried forward the flame of a batting tradition that dates back to Sathasivam and Fredrick de Saram. But while others came and went, Murali was the constant, the heart of a team that had found its place and voice in world cricket.

Murali may leave behind records that will never be broken, but he was never selfish. Time after time, he bowled himself into the ground for the team cause, and it was perhaps fitting that the final furlong to 800 was the hardest. In the first innings he needed just 102 deliveries for five wickets. The three in the second required 44.4 overs.

When VVS Laxman was run out, leaving India nine down and many in the crowd on tenterhooks, Murali merely smiled and celebrated with the other fielders. A lesser man would have been a bundle of nerve fibres, but Murali looked as calm as someone who knew that nothing could come between him and his destiny.

From the painfully shy hill-country boy who used to beg his captain to take him off so that he wouldn't have to front up to journalists' microphones if he took a bunch of wickets, to a chatty senior statesman with a wicked sense of humour, Murali's journey has been nothing short of remarkable. In Test cricket alone, he bowled 44,039 deliveries, more than twice as many as Bishan Singh Bedi, the most prolific of India's famous spin quartet from the 1960s and '70s.




For nearly two decades, Murali was Sri Lanka's Learie Constantine, the prime factor in his nation wresting respect from a grudging world

When he wasn't harvesting wickets by the bushel, Murali was dodging the critics' darts. Those that hold him responsible for legitimising "illegal" actions - Bedi among them - miss a very important point. The laws were not changed to accommodate Murali, they had to be tweaked because the research done on his action revealed that even those with "clean" actions straightened their arms more than 10 degrees.

Then there were the jibes about wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, as though it was Murali's fault that the Future Tours Programme is a joke that denies Sri Lanka and several other teams a level playing field. Was it his deformed elbow that ensured he never toured South Africa after December 2002? Or the suppleness of his wrists that was responsible for Sri Lanka never playing a Test at the spin-friendly SCG?

A lesser man would have lashed out far more often. It's to his eternal credit that Murali rarely bothered to respond to the barbs. At the post-match presentation in Galle, he had another opportunity, when Tony Greig mentioned the umpires who had no-balled him all those years ago. Murali responding by talking of the naked eye, and them having to "do a job". If only those that belittle him had that kind of class.

My favourite Murali memory will be of an evening a few years ago. Feeling peckish before an interview, he had room service at the Taj Samudra in Colombo. When the food - simple fare of rice and dhal - was laid out on the table, the bearer gave him the bill. Murali grimaced looking at it. "650 rupees for dhal? It's made of gold or what?"

As the bearer stared at the floor uncomfortably, Murali smiled and exchanged a few pleasantries. You could see the man's mood change. By the time he left the room with the tray, his chest was puffed out and you could be sure that his colleagues would have had to endure multiple retellings of the evening Murali spoke to him.

Treasure the 800 wickets, but remember, too, the 1024 houses he built for those whose lives were devastated by the tsunami. They say more about the man than his athletic achievements ever will. Also recall the joy with which he played the game, the childlike delight that accompanied each plotted dismissal, the skip and jump into a team-mate's arms.

Neville Cardus once said of Learie Constantine: "When Constantine plays the whole man plays, not just the professional cricketer part of him. There is nothing in the world for him when he bats, save a ball to be hit -- and a boundary to be hit over. When he bowls, the world is three wickets, there to be sent spinning gloriously. Cricket, indeed, is Constantine's element; to say that he plays cricket, or takes part in it, is to say that a fish goes swimming. Constantine is cricket, West Indian cricket..."

For nearly two decades, Murali was Sri Lanka's Constantine, the prime factor in his nation wresting respect from a grudging world. There are a few more one-day scalps to claim and Twenty20 batsmen to embarrass. But for now he can put his feet up and contemplate a job that no one in the world could have done better. Top of the world on the field, and a different class off it. Truly one of a kind.

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/con...ry/468490.html

[PARAMASHIVAN]

Glad to see some points made in mainstream media now.
Like, for a long time in the net, I was the only commenter talking about his record against England, and that his good record against Bangal and Zim is offset by Warne's record against England. I never saw this argument in mainstream media until recently in Cricinfo.

Basically, I would even argue that an English/SA lineup against good spin is as weak as a Zim/Ban lineup. The Zim/Ban argument against Murali is really a straw man.


Regards chucking, I am all for changing rules to suit genius. Rules exist for games not the other way around. If the game is enriched by Murali's genius, how does it matter that according to your archaic rules, he chucks?(not granting that he chucks, but even assuming he does)

Lets look at this way. Suppose Murali is chucking, then there are two possibilities
1) Nobody else is able in future to do the same and bowl as well as him
2) There is a multitude of people who follow him and are able to replicate his feat

If (1) happens, we are really talking of a unique genius, whose feats cant be replicated even by bowlers who can replicate his chucking action. If (2) happens, then my take is that, if everyone can do it, and it adds vaIn which case, Murali is an unique talent to be celebrated

variety to the team(Doosra certainly does - a world in which off spinners are toothless is not going to lead to great Cricket anyway), then what are we complaining about? It becomes a skill to master.

It just needs a shift in perspective as to which is important - archaic rules or bringing in skills into the game which arent really unfair. Afterall, without the Doosra, an offspinner today is really ineffective giving Batsmen a huge advantage in an already batsmen dominated game.
So, 15 degree, 10 degree whatever. A skill that adds value to the game without significantly altering the batsmen-bowler balance is to be welcomed into the game.

Plum ji

well said !!

[PARAMASHIVAN]

There are many cricket fan(atic)s here, it is a shame to see only ' handfull' paid tributes to the Genius

[P_R]

Flau, pEsa vaikkureengaLE...

Regards chucking, I am all for changing rules to suit genius.Rules exist for games not the other way around.

Imagine a 'genius' who, because of a physical deformity can only roll the ball on the ground and can't pitch it. If bent arm can be legalized, why not underarm?

Presumably he'd be the most economical bowler in the history of cricket. He'll be a star and the headlines can scream: Stingy Splendour, Prince of Parsimony, Kanjoos Carbuncle etc.

What if there is someone who 'because of a congenital shoulder defect' cannot rotate his arm fully. Should we allow baseball pitches for him? And if such a 'bowling' is legal, it allows others too. That will make the bowlers faster and deflate the dominance of the batsman (hey I nearly sold this to myself!). But it will still
not 'significantly change the balance'. It is presumable that the batsmen can adapt to it. Perhaps they will make some cudgel bats
Will that, in your opinion, be a healthy change?

Just curious to know the limits of your accommodativeness.

(not granting that he chucks, but even assuming he does)

Oh assuming vEraiyA ? Did you see the leg-break with the straight arm videos I posted in the Ind-Sl thread? (If not search Murali + legbreak in youtube. I can't open now)

That shows that Murali can bowl with a straight arm if he wants to but 'chooses' not to. That IMO takes the whole argument to a completely new level.

I am glad you did not try the argument that Murali supporters slip in that his skill does not owe to his action. You have spared me a puh-leeeze !

I dont' want to speculate how good a bowler he would have been without such an action. I don't think we can reasonably comment on that.

IMO Murali is about 'nothing succeeds like success'.

Plus they added a racial twist to it, that so many ppl, who I expected would have spoken up, were kinda gagged at the expense of the game. I have always been disappointed about this.

Unfortunately the only vocal detractor is Bishan Singh Bedi, who with his tasteless comments, only weakens this side of the argument. I do understand his sense of outrage though.

I wish someone breaks Murali's record but I know no-one will. :sigh: So I have taken it upon myself to disabuse future generations of any admiration that stems from this record.

Mathabadi nallavar, vallavar estra. one helluva committed cricketer, brilliant outfielder (a point noone seems to mention) - all taken.

[PARAMASHIVAN]

Murali: The man who reinvented spin bowling
Muttiah Muralitharan may be the greatest spin bowler ever Muttiah Muralitharan, who played his last Test on Thursday, may have been the greatest bowler to spin a cricket ball. Sports writer Suresh Menon reflects on the career of a remarkable cricketer.

Before the start of the Galle Test, Muttiah Muralitharan's last, India's ace spinner Anil Kumble paid him one of the warmest tributes from one great bowler to another.

"When you see that Murali has played exactly the same number of Tests as me and taken 173 wickets more," he said, "you begin to understand the magnitude of his achievement."

Spin bowling is about masks and disguises, sleights of hand and tempting arcs.

Batsmen reach for the ball that is not there, or adopt a superior air, ignoring the one that seems set to go past but then inexplicably changes course. They are rendered illiterate - unable to read the spinning ball.

Muralitharan's greatness lay in the fact that even when batsmen read him, there was little they could do to keep him out.

Test cricket's most successful bowler is 38, and even if the spirit is willing there is only so much a body can do.

Defining the delivery

Murali's record 800 wickets are likely to stand forever given the diminishing interest in Test cricket, but figures do not tell the full story.

Murali was responsible for cricket's first proper attempt to define the legal delivery.

Thanks to his action, umpires know there is a difference between what the eye sees and the computer calculates.

That he reinvented the art of spin bowling tends to be forgotten in the light of this fundamental contribution.

While studying Murali's action, it was noticed that some of the finest bowlers known for their smooth actions did, in fact, send down illegal deliveries.

By the earlier system - the naked eye - someone like Australian fast-bowler Glenn McGrath was seen as picture perfect. Then technology showed that he too fell outside the demands of the legal.


Muralitharan is a national icon That led to a new world order where a flexion (the act of bending) of 15 degrees of the bowler's arm was allowed.

Those who criticise him base their observations on the naked eye; those who absolve him go by the definition. Murali's action is legal, but he has suffered more than anyone needs to.

Few cricketers have had to shoulder his burdens - as a minority Tamil in a strife-laden country, as a bowler worshipped and reviled in equal measure, as a player in a team whose fortunes rose or fell according to his performance.

In nearly two decades at the top, he won over everybody - both sides of the ethnic divide and both sides of the bowling-action divide.

His work after the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka released him from the narrow confines of a sporting hero and anointed him a national icon. Through it all he has remained rooted, a charmer who finds it hard to believe that by merely doing what he loves the most, he has rewritten the rules of his craft.

Unlike most spinners, Murali didn't appear on the international scene a finished product, every trick in place, every nuance worked out.

It took him 27 Tests to claim 100 wickets; the hundreds thereafter came in 15, 16, 14, 15, 14 and 12 Tests respectively.

This wasn't a genius that was created behind closed doors, but one that evolved out in the open, in front of thousands of spectators.

Symbol

Every ball, every wicket, was tucked away in that remarkable mind; nothing was forgotten, nothing was useless. Muralitharan is the man who remembers everything.

He brought to the craft a new way of doing things, converting a finger-spinning exercise into a wrist-spinning one. He remains the symbol of a resurgent Sri Lanka, a talented side from its pre-Test days but one that needed a touch of iron to perform consistently.


Muralitharan was worshipped and reviled in equal measure Sri Lanka have won 61 Test matches in all. Muralitharan has played significant roles in 54 of these, claiming 438 wickets at 16.18, taking five-wicket hauls an incredible 41 times.

He might have finished with the best-ever figures for a single innings, but after he had claimed nine wickets against Zimbabwe at Kandy, Russel Arnold dropped a catch at short leg. Then, while bowlers at the other end tried desperately not to take a wicket, Chaminda Vaas accidentally had the last man caught behind amid stifled appeals.

Murali has taken 10 wickets in a match four games in a row. Twice.

That record alone would have ensured Murali a place in the pantheon.

But his influence is not restricted to his country's improved performance.

With better bats, shorter boundaries and tougher physiques, batsmen have threatened to eliminate the offspinner from the game.

Murali has kept the craft alive with a simple ploy - being successful at it. By developing the doosra - a ball which turns the opposite way to a traditional off-break - that was invented by Saqlain Mushtaq, he widened its scope.

He expanded the horizons of the game, bringing in elements that make it more complex, and therefore more interesting, and providing challenges in the meeting of which international batsmen made their reputations.

Nobody bowls like Murali; sadly, not even Murali towards the end, and the time had come. But he will be missed, as any one-of-a-kind performer will be.

There is no "Murali" school of bowling, no successor who bowls in his unique style. Murali stood alone, and now that he is gone, only memories - and video replays - remain.

Suresh Menon is a leading sports writer who is based in Bangalore.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10708478

[Plum]

My point is this: If it is so easy to bowl a doosra, and reach the level of Murali, with a bent-arm, just go ahead and do it? Let me see how many such bowlers emerge?
If not, then we are talking of an unique skill, arent we?

Rolling a ball underarm - where is the skill in that? I am just saying it hasnt been proven to me that you can be as succesful as Murali or even half as succesful with a bent arm. And that doosra does it really alter the balance of the game?

[Plum]

Besides, I really want to know if the 15 degree business doesnt have any meaning at all.

[PARAMASHIVAN]

P_R

The ICC has cleared him of 'such bowling' , so there is no point in arguing about that.

I am sure they know far more about 'legality' of bowling than us. Period.