[Video] What makes Murali so great

Courtesy CricketCrowd


Lance Gibbs on Murali Magic..

Click to expand...

Murali's redemption, and our arrogance

A brilliant piece by Amit Varma for Cricinfo.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

9.40pm IST - What the chuck!

I received a number of interesting mails after my first post on this topic, about the rather convincing documentary Muttiah Muralitharan has made to prove his innocence, the nature of the optical illusion that his action creates, the unrelenting attitudes of both his supporters and his opponents, and the possible solutions to the whole issue of chucking. A lot of people agreed that Murali has done enough to be spared the trauma of repeated accusations; but a number of others raised objections that were reasonable and well argued.

Martin Brown, Arvind Sampath, Martin Bride and Chris Higginbottom all felt that bowling with a brace - and, thus, a legitimate action - for a documentary does not prove anything, because it does not mean that his action will remain in a match situation. Bride wrote, "If there was an inadvertent straightening that resulted from forces on his bowling arm the brace would prevent that from happening. Then, when he bowled without the brace, the same degree of straightening would occur."

Well, the documentary did prove one thing to me, that I had doubted earlier: that there is an optical illusion caused by Murali's bowling action. If he appeared to be straightening his arm with the brace on, when he obviously could not have done so, then the mere visual evidence alone, during a match, is not enough to convict him. It is not enough to exonerate him either, but we do presume a man innocent until proven guilty, and the fact that he appears to chuck is no case for the offence.

Another objection, raised by Vivek Shenoy and Prasanna Ganesan, is that he may have bowled his usual repertoire of deliveries cleanly during the tests, but he could still be chucking the odd ball during matches. Prasanna writes that the process of judging a bowler's action has "a fundamental flaw. It assumes that either a bowling action is flawed or it is not, and does not admit the possibility that a bowler can chuck the occasional ball without chucking all the time."

That's absolutely true - of any bowler. The effort balls of fast bowlers and the doosras of offspinners are often considered suspect, and this is a problem that the ICC will have to address at some point of time. Prasanna says, "In an ideal world, we would run an instantaneous test on every ball that is bowled to check whether it is a chuck or not. Technology to enable that seems far away. But the least we can hope for is to identify whether a ball is chucked or not from video footage of a match." I'm not sure if that is possible yet, given that a camera essentially throws up a two-dimensional picture that is often flawed, as in Murali's case, but I'm sure that if a bowler's action is covered from every angle, one can come to a judgement while accounting for optical illusions. In any case, that argument holds true for any bowler, so why should Murali be regarded with special suspicion?

The popular belief that Murali chucks is due to the optical illusion his action creates, but Arvind and Martin (Bride) also point out that his action for the doosra was, after all, found to be illegal recently, as per the current guidelines which define five degrees as the acceptable limit of flexion for spinners. The University of Western Australia, which came to this conclusion (and corrected his flex from 14 degrees to ten), also recommended that the ICC review their guidelines for chucking as they were flawed. If one accepts their authority for one observation, then why ignore the other one?

As the ICC recently admitted, some degree of elbow straightening has been detected in 99% of bowlers, including the likes of Courtney Walsh and Glenn McGrath. By the letter of the law as it has stood for over a century, thus, most bowlers are chuckers. In the light of this, the law clearly needs to be amended, and the ICC has tried to do just that, with its recommended guidelines of what degree of flexion is permissable. These guidelines, as Mukul Kesavan explains in the excellent piece that I linked to in my last post, are arbitary, and should be modified so that they are "uniform and enforcable".

The big question here is: what degree of flexion is acceptable? As Dave Richardson said, "Even a solid metal bar if rotated fast enough will display a degree of movement." Do we put the limit at the extent that is caused by these physical laws of movement and resistance? The opinion of the biomechanical experts, like the ones who made the recommendations of revisiting these guidelines, is critical here, and until the ICC delivers its judgement on this matter, and its rationale for that judgement, I'll remain an agnostic on whether 14 degrees is too much or not.

(Note that if you accept the report of the biomechanical experts that shows the flexion of the doosra to have been 14 degrees, you should also accept previous reports which have cleared Murali's offspinner and topspinner, and accept that the 500 or so wickets he took before he started employing the doosra are legitimate. Let's not be selective in our acceptance of the evidence here; that would be the confirmation bias at work.)

Among the others who wrote to me was Rajakumar, who said: "While the entire cricketing world was focussed on Murali's action, many of the fast bowlers have merrily chucked their way to glory and profit." Hmmm. Well, I have heard from reliable sources that a fast bowler whose name has been taken quite often in this context was found by the biomechanical dudes to have a flexion of forty degrees. This information isn't in the public domain yet, perhaps for political reasons, but clearly, something needs to be done about it. Whatever happens in that case, though, Murali deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Will he get it from the Australian prime minister? Theena writes to me: "I am going to sit back and wait for John Howard to amaze us with his cricket acumen if asked to comment on Murali's action. I wonder if he would say - 'Yes. They proved it on TV with that brace thing.'"

Now, wouldn't that be fun?

Click to expand...

Muttiah Muralitharan | The ICC bowling report

Bowling Report — Mr.Muttiah Muralitharan

14 April 2004

Professor Bruce Elliott

Ms. Jacque Alderson

Ms. Siobhan Reid

Mr. Daryl Foster (Cricket Authority)

INTRODUCTION

IN response to a request from the Sri Lankan Cricket Board, directed through Mr. Daryl Foster and the ICC (contact from Mr. David Richardson) Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan's spin bowling action was assessed in the Biomechanics Laboratory of the School of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the University of Western Australia. This request followed the match referee (Mr. Chris Broad) lodging a "suspect bowling action report" on his "doosra" delivery during the recent Australian tour of Sri Lanka. Testing was therefore restricted to analysis of his "doosra" delivery.

Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan arrived in Perth on 31st March 2004,

and his initial testing took place on Thursday the 1st of April. This testing comprised,

* an anthropometric assessment of his bowling arm

* a three-dimensional (3D) analysis of his bowing arm during the complete bowling action, although elbow angles are only reported from a position where the upper arm is horizontal to the ground until ball release (the area covered by the laws of the game). This involved filming Mr. Muralitharan using a 12-camera opto-reflective Vicon system operating at 250Hz (fields per
second).

The testing occurred in a laboratory environment, which permitted a full bowling run up, such that a portion of the pitch was housed outside the laboratory. A laterally (side) placed video camera recorded his images during delivery to assist in the identification of ball release. A front-on video camera was used to assist in the selection of the best `"doosra" deliveries.' Mr. Bruce Yardley, a former Australian spin bowler, who commented on the quality of each delivery, also assisted this task. He had been present in Sri Lanka during the recent Test series and could therefore comment on the quality of the laboratory compared with on-field bowling. * His best six deliveries were then analysed. Those selected satisfied the criteria of breaking the appropriate way off the pitch and being bowled with appropriate intensity by the spin bowling expert. The results from this testing session were verbally providedto Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan and Mr. Daryl Foster. In an attempt to ensure that all efforts were made to comply with ICC Rules, Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan, following consultation with the UWA biomechanics testing team then underwent a period of `technique remediation' with Mr. Daryl Foster, a renowned cricket coach.

A final 3D analysis, following ICC guidelines was carried out on the 7th April. This report includes the results from both testing sessions. A preamble, prior to the presentation of these data is included, to assist with the interpretation of the results.

1. PREAMBLE

It is important when reading the following report that consideration is given to a number of issues. These include the accuracy of the measurement system used in bowling assessment (repeatability and validity of measures), range of acceptability of elbow angles in the critical region (from when the upper arm is parallel to the ground until ball release) and finally differences or similarities between fast and spin bowling actions.

Accuracy of measurement system

The opto-reflective 12 camera Vicon System that recorded at 250 pictures/Sec has an error margin of approximately 1-degree in data collection. On-field recording systems, using a minimum of 3 high-speed video cameras for spin bowling, have accuracy levels of approximately 4-degrees, although these error margins were recorded in a laboratory environment (Richards, 1999).

The identification of elbow and shoulder joint centres in on-field data collection, where a shirt is worn also involves large errors. In a match the ability to differentiate anatomical movements such as "elbow extension" by digitising segment end-points, particularly if you have segment rotations, is extremely difficult and prone to error. This is certainly the case with spin bowlers. It is therefore not surprising that laboratory testing is preferred, particularly for spin bowlers, where an appropriate pitch length and run up can be structured. This is clearly the only way to test players, where data would be able to withstand scientific and therefore legal scrutiny.

Range of acceptability of elbow angles

The International Cricket Council (ICC) guidelines have been structured around fast bowling, so ranges of acceptability (10-degree — fast bowling; 5-degree spin bowling) may in fact need to be modified for spin bowling. Portus et al. (2003), the only published work in the area of changes of

elbow angle during fast bowling, suggested the ICC range of acceptability should be increased to 15 degrees if a large number of current fast bowlers are not to be subject to scrutiny and then remediation (none have been called for "throwing"). The logic in reducing the margin for fast bowlers compared with spin bowlers is based on the lower speed delivery of this classification of
bowler. However, while run up speed and length of arm are generally higher for fast bowlers, spinners such as Muttiah Muralitharan actually have a similar rotational speed of the arm system. Mr. Muralitharan recorded a similar time (=0.08s), from arm horizontal to release, to that recorded by Shabbir Ahmed Khan the Pakistan fast bowler recently tested by this team. Therefore a case can certainly be made for some spin bowlers such as Mr. Muralitharan to have the same range of acceptability in elbow angle to that of fast bowlers.

2. ANTHROPOMETRIC ASSESSMENT

	Mr.Muttiah Muralitharan	Normal
Wrist flexion-extension	78 deg flexion, 50 deg extension	Not applicable
Wrist abduction - adduction	26 deg abduction, 26 deg abduction	Not applicable
Forearm abduction angle ("carry angle")	18 deg	0 deg
Elbow flexion - extension	*Static 35 deg (flex) Dynamic 24 deg (fixed)	0 deg (full extension)
Shoulder internal rotation	68 deg	40 deg
Shoulder external rotation	102 deg	80 deg

* The dynamic value is the smallest flexion angle recorded while bowling (i.e. under load)

The anthropometry assessment clearly shows that Mr. Muralitharan has a natural 35 degrees of elbow flexion during standing, which during the delivery action (under load) reduces to a value of approximately 24 degrees. Therefore any biomechanical assessment of his bowling action must take this 24-degree angle into account. In practical terms this means that his elbow joint, depending on the load, will always display at least some flexion. His elbow abduction angle is also such that it displays a relatively large "carry angle".

Mr. Muralitharan's shoulder external rotation range is higher than normal, which allows him a greater range of motion during delivery. While this is an advantage in the development of speed, it also is a natural occurrence and does not therefore fall outside the bounds of human normality nor the rules of cricket. While this may be an advantage in bowling, it does not directly impact on the extension of the elbow.

However, the external rotation at the shoulder, combined with the 18-degree "carry angle" and 24-degree of permanent elbow flexion (see dynamic flexion above) will give the impression of "preparation for a throw". This is particularly true when the action is viewed in two-dimensions (e.g. television, or when observed by an umpire from a fixed position).

3. INITIAL BOWLING ASSESSMENT

Mr. Muralitharan attended the biomechanics laboratory at the school of Human Movement and Exercise Science on April 1st 2004. The results from this initial testing session are presented below.

Session 1 Results:

Following a warm-up, markers were attached to Mr. Muralitharan as shown in Figure 1. The mean velocity of six deliveries selected for analysis was 64 km/hr. A mean elbow extension range of 14 degrees was recorded for these six "doosra" deliveries (Table1, Figure 2). The curves graphed in Figure 2 clearly show that each delivery was bowled with a similar action. One can then be confident that Mr. Muralitharan bowls with a similar action in his "doosra" delivery. While one could argue that this extension is acceptable it is outside the current extension threshold of 5 degrees set by the ICC. Hence a period of remediation followed aimed at reducing the level of elbow extension from upper arm horizontal to release.

Figure 1: Defining elbow flexion-extension axis (not reproducible).

Table 1: Mean Changes in elbow angle from upper arm horizontal to ball release (six deliveries)

Delivery type	Range of Extension ( )	Speed (km/hr)
Doosra	14 deg (+ or - 2 deg) extension	65 (+ or - 3.0)

Figure 2: Elbow angle changes over the period from upper arm horizontal to ball release.

4. BOWLING TECHNIQUE REMEDIATION

See attached Remediation Report (Mr Daryl Foster)

5. FINAL BOWLING ASSESSMENT

Following the period of remediation a second biomechanical analysis of Mr. Muralitharan's "doosra" delivery was conducted on the 7th April, 2004. The results from this testing session are presented below.

Session 2 Results:

The mean extension for the elbow from upper arm horizontal to ball release was 10.2 degrees (Table 2, Figure 3). Variations in the elbow extension curves (Figure 3) and the small standard deviation for the 6 deliveries (Table 2), show that each of these deliveries is very close to a 10-degree level. He therefore bowls with a consistent action.

His mean delivery speed of 72 km/hr, which is at the higher end of his "test match range" of 65-75 km/hr, shows that he was bowling with intensity in this laboratory environment. The spin bowling expert also testified to the fact that the deliveries analysed deviated in the appropriate manner with "venom". He rotated his upper arm from the horizontal to release in a mean time of 0.072s, which is quicker than in Test 1 and also quicker than the time taken to rotate through the same angle by Shabbir Ahmed Khan.

Table 2: Changes in elbow angle from upper arm horizontal to ball release

Delivery type	Range of extension ( deg)	Speed (km/hr)	Match range (km/hr)
Doosra	10.2 deg (+or- 0.6 deg) extension	72 (+ or - 0.3)	65-75

Figure 3: Elbow angle changes over the period from upper arm horizontal to ball release following remediation.

Following remediation Mr. Muralitharan bowled with an increased flexion angle. However, the remediation had the effect of reducing elbow extension range from 14 degrees to 10 degrees. (See Figures 2 & 3)

6. CONCLUSIONS

In making recommendations regarding Mr. Muralitharan the following should be stated. While a full run up and standard pitch were used, data were collected in a laboratory environment. It is our considered opinion that this is the only way to record accurate and reliable 3D data of elbow

movement, particularly for spin bowling. The key to the issue with reference to a spin bowler, is the quality of the delivery and the rate of rotation of the upper arm. In our case Mr. Muralitharan produced high quality deliveries with an upper arm action that was similar in rotational speed to that of a fast bowler.

The mean time for his upper-arm to move from the horizontal to release in Testing session 2 (= 0.072s) was compared with the same movement recorded on video from the recent Sri Lanka vs Australia Test series. This video was provided by Mr. Muralitharan. While the positioning of cameras for data from the Test series was not ideal and video images were recorded at a slower rate (50 fps), it was evident that the time for the upper-arm to move from the horizontal
to release was similar for the Test series and the laboratory testing. Mean ball velocity at testing session 2 of 72 km/hr was also at the upper end of the range commonly reported for Mr. Muralitharan under Test conditions. We therefore contend that the bowling action recorded was similar to that used in a Test match.

A case may be made for Mr. Muralitharan's initial elbow extension to be acceptable at 14 degrees. Particularly, when one considers the speed of his arm rotation is similar to that of a fast bowler and the only scientific data related to fast bowling suggested an increase in the acceptable extension threshold from 10 degrees to 15 degrees (Portus et al., 2003).

However, the mean extension across 6 deliveries was outside current ICC guidelines for fast bowlers. For this reason a period of technique modification was carried out to reduce the level of elbow movement during the delivery of his "doosra". Following this remediation his level of elbow extension reduced to 10 degrees, which is within fast bowling guidelines. We contend that because the speed of his upper arm rotation is as fast and in some cases quicker than fast bowlers, his level of acceptability for elbow extension should also be set at the 10-degree mark. With no spin bowling data base to make a comparison, this would seem both a wise and prudent recommendation. Following the findings from Portus et al. (2003) we would also recommend that the ICC consider increasing the fast bowling extension threshold to 15 degrees.

Finally it is our considered opinion that Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his "doosra" at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines. The relatively minor level of elbow extension following remediation over the period from arm horizontal torelease is not believed to give Mr. Muralitharan an unfair advantage overbatsmen or other bowlers.

Professor Bruce Elliott Ms Jacque Alderson

7. REFERENCES

Portus, M., Mason, B., Rath, D. & Rosemond, C. (2003). Fast bowling arm actions and the illegal delivery law in men's high performance cricket matches. Science and Medicine in Cricket. R. Stretch, T. Noakes & C. Vaughan (Eds.), Com Press, Port Elizabeth, South Africa: 41-54. Richards, J. (1999). The measurement of human motion. A comparison of commercially available systems. Human Movement Science, 18:589-602.

Click to expand...

Muttiah Murali Muralidaran | Debunking The Urban Legend

Debunking Murali, his action and ICC Chucking laws.

"The ICC changed the rules for Murali "

Here's a classic! Completely and utterly false unless accompanied with the statement "The ICC also changed the rules because the human eye can only detect a flexation of 15° and beyond"

References:

"The study conducted by three prominent biomechanics experts suggests that the human eye can only detect a kink in the action if the straightening is more than 15 degrees."

ICC study reveals that 99% chuck - Wisden Cricinfo.

"The figure of 15 degrees was chosen after experts decided that was the cut-off point after which the action could be identified by the human eye.

"The regulations are based on the views of an expert panel of former players including Angus Fraser, Michael Holding and Tony Lewis - the current chairman of the MCC's Cricket Committee," said Richardson.

"This group studied the research of prominent bio-mechanists Professor Bruce Elliot, Dr Paul Hurrion and Mr Marc Portus and the scientific evidence they were presented with was overwhelming."

Richardson insisted the regulations were beneficial for umpires, ensuring the burden of making a subjective judgement was removed and replaced by a scientific approach.

"What they do is take the pressure off umpires because it is now no longer one person's view of whether or not a bowler has an illegal action," added Richardson.

"It is something that can be proved scientifically and the assessment is independent and not partisan."

ICC defends 'chucking' procedures - BBC Sport

"The ICC were pressured to change the laws or the 'Asian Bloc' who serve large commercial interest of the ICC will cause an uproar. "

Another feeble attempt to discredit the game's governing body, which is run by elected officials representing many nations. The suggestions to amend the chucking laws came from non other than the scientist from the University of Western Australia. A 6 man panel which included the likes of Tim May (AUS) and Micheal Holding (WI). The rule change was also authorised by the MCC.

References

"Those test conducted on him were rubbish, anyone would bowl differently under laboratory conditions."

To make that statement one must be aware that they are questioning the intelligence of the ICC and The panel which included Western Australia's finest Bio Mechanics experts. The ICC appointed former Australian spinner Bruce Yardley to over look the testing.

References:

"The testing occurred in a laboratory environment, which permitted a full bowling run up, such that a portion of the pitch was housed outside the laboratory. A laterally (side) placed video camera recorded his images during delivery to assist in the identification of ball release. A front-on video camera was used to assist in the selection of the best `"doosra" deliveries.' Mr. Bruce Yardley, a former Australian spin bowler, who commented on the quality of each delivery, also assisted this task. He had been present in Sri Lanka during the recent Test series and could therefore comment on the quality of the laboratory compared with on-field bowling."

Bowling Report — Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan - The Hindu

"Murali bowls Leg spin with a straight arm!"

This by far is the most tasteless. Don't question a deformity that we know for a fact exists?

Click here, I nipped this theory in the butt when a columnist in Australia decided to write about it in the Herald Sun!

I receive a large volume of emails on a daily basis questioning the legality of Murali's action and various other conspiracy theories. I will continue to update this post with more Debunked Urban Legends. Click to expand...