|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 8 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Sports |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Muralitharan - Why the prejudice, aiming unfair chuckers at him? by GEORGE MENDIS The Australians are coming to Sri Lanka later this month on a cricket tour and the name they fear most - Muttiah Muralitharan has hit the spotlight. Being the most 'ripe fruit' on the 'SL cricketing tree' Murali may have to face some rock stone chuckers thrown at him by naughty critics. Why? - the supposed prejudice and may be cricketing jealousy? . Muralitharan has justly won the gold as the world's best bowler and he is on the way to reap the 500th wicket. . Mesmerised the Englishmen and got more than 20 wkts in only 3 Tests. The world champion Aussies will be here in February may have imagined a danger net around Ponting, Hayden and Aussie VIP batsmen. . All these Murali gains may continue to annoy the jealousy prone lower grade cricket critics of the day - the Bedis, Athertons as against the well known cricketing experts like Tony Greig, David Lloyd, Ian Botham, Martin Jenkins, Holding who recently watched Murali very closely and made no adverse comments on Murali's bowling action - his use of the wrist to spin his deceptive deliveries were noted in particular irrespective of any type of optical illusions on an elbow - bend imagined by the prejudiced lot watching in coloured glasses. Before I venture to substantiate my viewpoint let me reflect on the relevant Law of Cricket. As an outcome of the first incident at the MCG, Australia in December 1995, wherein Murali's bowling action was no balled by umpire Hair, the ICC appointed a strong team of well-known senior Test players to make a very close scientific evaluation. Based on this technically sound report the ICC in 1997 cleared Muralitharan's bowling action as just within the laws. The relevant extract of the Cricket Law on throwing referred to reads. "A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown if in the opinion of the umpire the process of straightening of the bowling arm, whether partial or complete takes place during that part of the swing, which directly precedes the ball leaving the hand - This definition does not debar a bowler from the use of the wrist in the delivery swing". Murali's action is within the law in his exploitation of the wrist spin to direct his deliveries on the off, leg or straight (We suggest an occasional sudden faster or very slow ball be included in his versatile magical package). All true gentlemen in cricket, players, present and past, commentators, pressmen and also non-players and others in theory as spokesmen have to respect the verdict of the high court of cricketing justice, the International Council of Cricket in abiding by the laws of cricket. Let me repeat the comprehensive verdict for enlightenment of the still pending misguided critics. The ICC final judgement was: '..... A scientific analysis of the Sri Lankan off spinner's bowling style using the latest computer technology has ended one of the hottest debates in cricket by proving once and for all that his action is perfectly legal ... the results are so conclusive that they should put an end to any doubts of the legality of his action". We remember that Tony Greig discussed on the TV Murali's arm action and proved it as a genuine process in delivery of the ball-being bowled and not thrown. Dr. Nevile Turner, a former senior University Don on Sports Law and the former Chairman of the Australian Cricket Society told me clearly that there was no doubt on Murali's bowling action as legal. Murali on trial: Let me get to the crease and comment on the chuckers aimed at the bowling action of a player of greatness, simple in his cricketing behaviour, always with a smile and popular as one of the most active interesting players on the field. I need not take cudgels on the ill founded non-cricketing slang of Bedi in calling Murali a thief etc. since Professor Anton Jayasuriya, the world famous Alternative Medical Specialist and Acupuncturist is leading a move to take suitable legal action against the alleged libellous outburst; in the case of Atherton the less said the better as he is also a cricketing convict, being punished for carrying dirt in his pocket and rubbing it on the ball. Hence we can summarise the plus points on Murali as a cricketer/bowler being 'A' grade in respect of the parameters of good cricket as it should be played viz in the areas . Legal by cricket laws . Justice by all types, colours of cricketers . Fairplay on performances on the field and . Sportsmanship displayed in personal relationships on and off the field. I still feel that all the criticism presently from the cheaper cricket commentators may be due to a prejudice and hidden cricket jealousy - hoping to disturb Muralitharan's mentality when in full trim in control of the ball - this happened in Brisbane when Murali was unfairly barracked when SL toured Australia in 2002. Fortunately we have the Australian Test player John Dyson as coach - Dyson is also a teacher cum psychologist; We hope that Murali and other world class players - Sanath, Marvan, Mahela, Vaas ... will get more of a 'mind-set' psychological get up to face all odds in the field, sledging etc. However the Sri Lanka Cricket authority will have to work out a project to continuous evaluate and help the players to strengthen their confidence and build up their psychological balance to enable them to boldly be calm and face all challenges on and off the field in word or in print and not be vulnerable to ill founded criticism or sledging on the field. Muralitharan has to be treated a cricketing treasure and has to be cared and nurtured in a special manner by the SLC high command. He cannot be over bowled and physically taxed. It appears that Marvan Atapattu's case is also a matter that deserves concern so that such extraneous adverse occasions do not arise. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
