Recently, there have been many an eulogy of Mutthiah Muralidharan, in the context of his 800th test wicket as well his audacity in almost fixing the date for his achievement!! A rather innocuous write-up by a friend on Murali just managed to needle me into expressing my thoughts on this record-holder.
I know there are many ardent fans of Murali, but I must confess I am not one of them. While I have no problem in recognizing all the hurdles he had to jump over to attain his record (which may not be broken for a long time) and therefore his grit and passion for the game, I am not able to reconcile what he peddled as off-spin bowling with `classical spin bowling,' as we know. Bedi might have crossed the rubicon of civility when he called Murali a `javeline thrower' rather than an off-spinner, but I must confess I share Bedi's sentiment when it comes to Murali's action. I cannot think of any other player in the history of cricket who has had such an `unusual' action and was permitted by the establishment to go the distance. While many have pointed out the fact that this unfortunate bowler has gone through umpteen tests, most imposed and some voluntary. I dont think Murali becomes a hero just because he submitted himself to all the tests required of him -- he is the cricket equivalent of an `accused' in the legal parlance. I believe he had no choice, if he wanted to continue and he was not doing any favour to anyone except himself. And, to his credit, those who scrutinised him, thought it best to let him go on. That blessed him with legitimacy alright. While I am not even interested in going into the details of the tests and results thereof (obviously because I am not an expert in measuring bent angles and reasons therefor). But, as a fan of classical spin bowling of bowlers like Prasanna, Bedi, Venkat, V.V.Kumar, Doshi, Shivalkar, Shane Warne, Underwood, Benaud, (and we can go on, I guess) and their great actions, I do see why Murali was lucky to survive in first class cricket after those calls by Darrel Hair. Murali got called for his off-breaks, then the wily fox he is, he bowled a few leg breaks to complete the over and again got called for chucking. Gleefully he smiled and told his team-mates `look, this is all pre-meditated; otherwise, how can he call me for chucking when I bowl leg-breaks in between??'. It is indeed almost impossible to chuck a leg-break, as we know, due to the grip and the position of the wrist. But that is neither here nor there. The dye was cast and many cricket fans across the globe, who were bewildered by the action of this bowler earlier, nodded and muttered `I thought so!', agreeing with Hair.
Believe me, I am going by what I can see with my naked eye and I dont need the crutch of a Hair or any other umpire. The problem is, as medically certified, that Murali had a deformity in his bowling arm which did not permit him to straighten the arm as much as normally would have been possible without the deformity. The authorities devised tests and agreed on a 15 degree angle by which the bowling arm can be crooked by the bowler at the time of delivery. Where the exact number came from and why might have been explained somewhere, but that was never going to be satisfactory. Now, if another bowler comes along with a greater degree of deformity and he had a crook his arm even more than Murali to complete the delivery, would this other bowler also be allowed to continue, after a minor adjustment to the 15 degree limit? Medical certification may state a fact, but the question is whether the permitted degree of crookedness of the arm can be adjusted endlessly to allow bowlers to become something less in the bargain?? Unfortunately, in my opinion, the answer should be a resounding `no' and should have been the case with Murali also.
The other lame argument in favour of Murali has been, well he is not a pace bowler, so even if the action is not completely good, so what. He is not going to fell anyone with the ball. Now, that is a diabolical argument. In my opinion, it is not a coincidence that Murali probably is able to extract more out of any pitch, even the most unresponsive ones, than any other spinner. One can test this easily by `bowling' a few off breaks and then slightly crooking the arm and `throwing' a few. The turn and bounce are very different in the latter case, to the significant advantage of the bowler. If Murali and Prasanna have bowled together at any time, I can bet my bottom dollar that Murali would have got much better turn and bounce than Prasanna on any wicket anywhere!!
Having said all that, Murali is the record holder and kudos to him. He is a respectable man, who overcame humungous difficulties to achieve what he did. My only wish is that he had reaped that harvest with a sickle less crooked!!
While we were talking of unusual actions, someone asked `what about Malinga?'. What about Malinga? Yes, his action is absolutely unconventional, but that is not what we are talking about when Murali is the subject. I hope the difference is clear. Actually, when I look at people with round-arm
action like Malinga, I wonder how they ever manage to land the balls in the right place, especially at that pace!! I believe it is much easier to bowl in a particular area, if you have the conventional over-arm action. Think about it, when you are bowling round-arm, a-la Malinga, the wrist while delivering the ball, is so far away from the head/face, that it requires a lot more skill and practice to sling it to land in a particular spot and manage the pace and direction too. Try throwing the ball over-arm Vs round-arm and you will know which is more difficult. So, Malinga's action makes it much more difficult for him and there lies the skill in managing to do what he does, rifling in those toe-crunching yorkers he bowls with unfailing regularity. I think he is a wonderful bowler, albeit with a different type of action. But his arm is still straight at delivery and action is still legal!!
I know there are many ardent fans of Murali, but I must confess I am not one of them. While I have no problem in recognizing all the hurdles he had to jump over to attain his record (which may not be broken for a long time) and therefore his grit and passion for the game, I am not able to reconcile what he peddled as off-spin bowling with `classical spin bowling,' as we know. Bedi might have crossed the rubicon of civility when he called Murali a `javeline thrower' rather than an off-spinner, but I must confess I share Bedi's sentiment when it comes to Murali's action. I cannot think of any other player in the history of cricket who has had such an `unusual' action and was permitted by the establishment to go the distance. While many have pointed out the fact that this unfortunate bowler has gone through umpteen tests, most imposed and some voluntary. I dont think Murali becomes a hero just because he submitted himself to all the tests required of him -- he is the cricket equivalent of an `accused' in the legal parlance. I believe he had no choice, if he wanted to continue and he was not doing any favour to anyone except himself. And, to his credit, those who scrutinised him, thought it best to let him go on. That blessed him with legitimacy alright. While I am not even interested in going into the details of the tests and results thereof (obviously because I am not an expert in measuring bent angles and reasons therefor). But, as a fan of classical spin bowling of bowlers like Prasanna, Bedi, Venkat, V.V.Kumar, Doshi, Shivalkar, Shane Warne, Underwood, Benaud, (and we can go on, I guess) and their great actions, I do see why Murali was lucky to survive in first class cricket after those calls by Darrel Hair. Murali got called for his off-breaks, then the wily fox he is, he bowled a few leg breaks to complete the over and again got called for chucking. Gleefully he smiled and told his team-mates `look, this is all pre-meditated; otherwise, how can he call me for chucking when I bowl leg-breaks in between??'. It is indeed almost impossible to chuck a leg-break, as we know, due to the grip and the position of the wrist. But that is neither here nor there. The dye was cast and many cricket fans across the globe, who were bewildered by the action of this bowler earlier, nodded and muttered `I thought so!', agreeing with Hair.
Believe me, I am going by what I can see with my naked eye and I dont need the crutch of a Hair or any other umpire. The problem is, as medically certified, that Murali had a deformity in his bowling arm which did not permit him to straighten the arm as much as normally would have been possible without the deformity. The authorities devised tests and agreed on a 15 degree angle by which the bowling arm can be crooked by the bowler at the time of delivery. Where the exact number came from and why might have been explained somewhere, but that was never going to be satisfactory. Now, if another bowler comes along with a greater degree of deformity and he had a crook his arm even more than Murali to complete the delivery, would this other bowler also be allowed to continue, after a minor adjustment to the 15 degree limit? Medical certification may state a fact, but the question is whether the permitted degree of crookedness of the arm can be adjusted endlessly to allow bowlers to become something less in the bargain?? Unfortunately, in my opinion, the answer should be a resounding `no' and should have been the case with Murali also.
The other lame argument in favour of Murali has been, well he is not a pace bowler, so even if the action is not completely good, so what. He is not going to fell anyone with the ball. Now, that is a diabolical argument. In my opinion, it is not a coincidence that Murali probably is able to extract more out of any pitch, even the most unresponsive ones, than any other spinner. One can test this easily by `bowling' a few off breaks and then slightly crooking the arm and `throwing' a few. The turn and bounce are very different in the latter case, to the significant advantage of the bowler. If Murali and Prasanna have bowled together at any time, I can bet my bottom dollar that Murali would have got much better turn and bounce than Prasanna on any wicket anywhere!!
Having said all that, Murali is the record holder and kudos to him. He is a respectable man, who overcame humungous difficulties to achieve what he did. My only wish is that he had reaped that harvest with a sickle less crooked!!
While we were talking of unusual actions, someone asked `what about Malinga?'. What about Malinga? Yes, his action is absolutely unconventional, but that is not what we are talking about when Murali is the subject. I hope the difference is clear. Actually, when I look at people with round-arm
action like Malinga, I wonder how they ever manage to land the balls in the right place, especially at that pace!! I believe it is much easier to bowl in a particular area, if you have the conventional over-arm action. Think about it, when you are bowling round-arm, a-la Malinga, the wrist while delivering the ball, is so far away from the head/face, that it requires a lot more skill and practice to sling it to land in a particular spot and manage the pace and direction too. Try throwing the ball over-arm Vs round-arm and you will know which is more difficult. So, Malinga's action makes it much more difficult for him and there lies the skill in managing to do what he does, rifling in those toe-crunching yorkers he bowls with unfailing regularity. I think he is a wonderful bowler, albeit with a different type of action. But his arm is still straight at delivery and action is still legal!!
