David Warner is now the batsman's equivalent of a chucker

[Bilal7]

After the MCC's proposals have come to light and it has been understood that bat sizes will now be restricted to a width of 40mm and a depth of 67mm, what happens to batsmen like David Warner who have been using bats that comfortably exceed that limit over the past several years?

Is it not fair that Warner be called a "cheat", "fraud" and the other not-so-nice labels that were attached to Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafeez and Sunil Narine, after they were found guilty of breaching the ICC's newly interpreted rules and regulations surrounding chucking?

Should Warner now be barred from any conversation about batsmen because he had an unfair advantage?

 

[Statsman]

Did ICC change the chucking rules or just tightened the implementation?

 

[Major]

In ajmals case the rules were there but they were not implemented religiously.

Warners case is different. The rule was never their for warner

 

[Bilal7]

Did ICC change the chucking rules or just tightened the implementation?

They changed the institution that would conduct the test, and the way the angles were measured was also changed.

 

[Bilal7]

In ajmals case the rules were there but they were not implemented religiously.

Warners case is different. The rule was never their for warner

Ajmal was cleared by the rules that were in place. ICC then changed things, just like the MCC has done so now. The rules for bat sizes were also in place; you couldn't walk in with a 4 meter wide bat, could you? They were simply not enforced which makes this a messier situation that the chucking one, because at least that was being enforced.

 

[Major]

Ajmal was cleared by the rules that were in place. ICC then changed things, just like the MCC has done so now. The rules for bat sizes were also in place; you couldn't walk in with a 4 meter wide bat, could you? They were simply not enforced which makes this a messier situation that the chucking one, because at least that was being enforced.

Rules were not really changed, they were their, problem was icc wasnt strict it gave leeway if board members intervened.

Also were the bat rules already in placed from the past? I didnt know about this.

If so, then i understand the point you come up with. But i think both cases cant be treated the same.

 

[Convict]

After the MCC's proposals have come to light and it has been understood that bat sizes will now be restricted to a width of 40mm and a depth of 67mm, what happens to batsmen like David Warner who have been using bats that comfortably exceed that limit over the past several years?

Is it not fair that Warner be called a "cheat", "fraud" and the other not-so-nice labels that were attached to Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafeez and Sunil Narine, after they were found guilty of breaching the ICC's newly interpreted rules and regulations surrounding chucking?

Should Warner now be barred from any conversation about batsmen because he had an unfair advantage?

Wahwahwah

Warner (and pretty much every other batsmen) were playing under the established rules of the time.

Chucking was allowed to get out of hand because the ICC wasn't willing to police it's own rules (similar to ball tampering today where only getting caught red handed with video in the public eye gets you investigated)

 

[Junaids]

After the MCC's proposals have come to light and it has been understood that bat sizes will now be restricted to a width of 40mm and a depth of 67mm, what happens to batsmen like David Warner who have been using bats that comfortably exceed that limit over the past several years?

Is it not fair that Warner be called a "cheat", "fraud" and the other not-so-nice labels that were attached to Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafeez and Sunil Narine, after they were found guilty of breaching the ICC's newly interpreted rules and regulations surrounding chucking?

Should Warner now be barred from any conversation about batsmen because he had an unfair advantage?

No, because Warner complied with the rules.

Ajmal and Narine got away with breaking existing rules until the ICC started to enforce the existing rules.

Meanwhile under the existing rules Murali was twice convicted of chucking.

 

[Bilal7]

Wahwahwah

Warner (and pretty much every other batsmen) were playing under the established rules of the time.

Chucking was allowed to get out of hand because the ICC wasn't willing to police it's own rules (similar to ball tampering today where only getting caught red handed with video in the public eye gets you investigated)

This has also gotten out of hand because the ICC has not been policing its own rules. Chucking and mace-wielding should be treated equally. Don't lump "pretty much every other batsman" with Warner, his bat is abnormally huge and the new regulations on bat sizes acknowledge that most bats these days are between 38 to 42 mm wide and the 40mm limit encompasses them perfectly. Warner's bats are the anomaly and he gets an unfair advantage over the other batsmen playing today.

 

[Bilal7]

No, because Warner complied with the rules.

Ajmal and Narine got away with breaking existing rules until the ICC started to enforce the existing rules.

Meanwhile under the existing rules Murali was twice convicted of chucking.

Ajmal and Narine were both cleared to bowl, just like Warner was cleared to use his ginormous bats. ICC changed their rules which is what caught them out.

 

[Statsman]

This has also gotten out of hand because the ICC has not been policing its own rules. Chucking and mace-wielding should be treated equally. Don't lump "pretty much every other batsman" with Warner, his bat is abnormally huge and the new regulations on bat sizes acknowledge that most bats these days are between 38 to 42 mm wide and the 40mm limit encompasses them perfectly. Warner's bats are the anomaly and he gets an unfair advantage over the other batsmen playing today.

What was the rule? And what has been Warner's bat's size? Curious.

 

[Gilly]

What was Warners bat measurements, did they exceed the laws?.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Bats are too big nowadays, no wonder why Amir is struggling.

 

[Major]

Bats are too big nowadays, no wonder why Amir is struggling.

)

To be honest, you need to have alot of man power to handle a heavy bat. Playing shots and timing with it could be risky, more prone to edges flying to slip on mistimed shots

 

[Aman]

What was Warners bat measurements, did they exceed the laws?.

Have you seen his bat?...

 

[Aman]

Bats are too big nowadays, no wonder why Amir is struggling.

Tell me about it, I bloody got flicked for a 100m six by a Warner sized bat. It's getting ridiculous!

 

[Gilly]

Have you seen his bat?...

I thought that Galyes bat looked bigger.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Another reason why today's bowlers are underrated and batsman overrated.

 

[Statsman]

Have you seen his bat?...

I thought that Galyes bat looked bigger.

That is not the point though.

Has Warner been violating any ICC rules by using a larger bat? I'd like the OP to respond to that.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Tell me about it, I bloody got flicked for a 100m six by a Warner sized bat. It's getting ridiculous!

Back in the days I used to think Sachin's bat was big and how commentators used to say he is using a heavy bat and it even looked twice the size than Dravid's, I used to think he used to cheat, so yeah Warner should be punished, even though I don't agree with Bilal on a lot of things, he has a point here.

 

[Aman]

You know there is something wrong when top edges are flying for six.

 

[Bilal7]

That is not the point though.

Has Warner been violating any ICC rules by using a larger bat? I'd like the OP to respond to that.

He was gaining an unfair advantage by using a bat that is 85mm thick, just like "chuckers" were gaining an advantage by bowling with a flex of 50 degrees.

Neither him nor the "chuckers" were breaking any ICC rules when they were bowling as has been discussed before. It was only when the rules changed that they were caught out.

 

[Gilly]

After the MCC's proposals have come to light and it has been understood that bat sizes will now be restricted to a width of 40mm and a depth of 67mm, what happens to batsmen like David Warner who have been using bats that comfortably exceed that limit over the past several years?

Is it not fair that Warner be called a "cheat", "fraud" and the other not-so-nice labels that were attached to Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafeez and Sunil Narine, after they were found guilty of breaching the ICC's newly interpreted rules and regulations surrounding chucking?

Should Warner now be barred from any conversation about batsmen because he had an unfair advantage?

The ICC changed the rules about how many bouncers a bowler could bowl in one over, do we now bar the West Indies from having one of the best bowling teams from the eighties because they had an unfair advantage.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads ever.

 

[Muhammad Saad]

Ok this is ridiculous thread , how can you blame some one for not following the rule even though there is no such rule to begin with?

 

[Major]

Ok this is ridiculous thread , how can you blame some one for not following the rule even though there is no such rule to begin with?

not a ridiculous thread.

The OP has a valid point of view that if one could deemed illegal while the rule being there why couldn't this be

 

[Gilly]

not a ridiculous thread.

The OP has a valid point of view that if one could deemed illegal while the rule being there why couldn't this be

It is ridiculous, Warner has never breached any rule on bat size, ever.

 

[Bilal7]

It is ridiculous, Warner has never breached any rule on bat size, ever.

The "chuckers" broke no rules either when they were bamboozling batsmen everywhere.

The ICC changed the rules about how many bouncers a bowler could bowl in one over, do we now bar the West Indies from having one of the best bowling teams from the eighties because they had an unfair advantage.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads ever.

Because everyone had a level playing field. If the Windies were allowed six bouncers and everyone else was only allowed two, then you would have a point.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

OP keeps insisting that rules for Ajmal were changed.

The rules were not changed, testing center was changed and the way the test was conducted was changed.

If you bowled above 20 degrees in any century, you would have been called a chucker.

What was the rule for bat size before Warner started using his blade? I am sure OP knows there was no rule.

However, in haste to defend Ajmal, one does have a pertinent problem.


Even if we assume that test center and way the angle was measured was changed, 50 degrees is blatant chucking.

You think under old rules Ajmal would be still 20 degrees or less? Laughable.

He was always over 20 degrees, ICC just decided to crack down.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

A common way to understand for people who have no common sense.

There is a traffic signal and the policemen have said you can't cross the light when it's red.

There is no policeman so some cars regularly cross the traffic signal when the light is red.

One day they are caught.

You complain, that the traffic signal turned red too soon, the red signal used to be of different color before, and any other ridiculous point you can come up with, instead of following the rules.

1 year later, cops enforce a rule that all those who are crossing on yellow light, must also stop.

The person arrested for crossing red light comes to police after 1 year and says, arrest everyone who was crossing the yellow light for past one year, because rule is to not cross yellow light.

I hope some people can see light.

 

[Thivagar]

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Bilal7]

This thread isn't about Ajmal specifically but for those of us with minimal knowledge of the topic at hand, Ajmal was found to have a flex under 10 degrees when he was tested by the institution that the ICC asked to develop the testing procedures in the first place.

There was no refusal to crack down. The old rules simply used different measurements which is why Ajmal, and before him Murali and Bhajji, were cleared to bowl. After the testing institute was changed, the ICC decided that umpires should be more vigilant in calling players. However, that made no difference to guys like Ajmal who had already been called years before and tested as well. What did make a difference was a change in the institution conducting the tests and the way they conducted said tests.

Similarly, in this current issue, Warner broke no rules when he was wielding his greatsword because the ICC's rules allowed him to, despite him gaining a clear advantage over most of the other players. Now the ICC has changed the rules and Warner will most certainly have to get his bat changed which raises questions about the runs he accumulated with his monstrous bat, just like there are questions over Narine's wickets gained with his old action.

So either treat Warner like any of these "chuckers" or treat the "chuckers" like Warner, and admit that they broke no rules and that if anyone is at fault in both these situations, it is the ICC.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

There was a refusal to crack down.

Anyone who thinks ICC was complying with their rules, is high.

It's no surprise that because the testing procedures that measured Ajmal were supposedly less than 10 degrees, we saw so many chuckers like Senanyake , Narine pop up.

And when they got banned, and rightfully so, people complained ICC was enforcing rules before but it's test fault.

Ridiculous.

 

[Convict]

not a ridiculous thread.

The OP has a valid point of view that if one could deemed illegal while the rule being there why couldn't this be

Well from memory the OP was in complete denial about the whole chucking thing in the first place and it is fairly obvious this stretches from that.

Especially since he refuses to extend it to the Windies bouncer rule - by his logic that is discounted because any other team could bowl 6 bouncers per over - likewise any other batsman could use a bat like Warner

 

[HitWicket]

He was gaining an unfair advantage by using a bat that is 85mm thick, just like "chuckers" were gaining an advantage by bowling with a flex of 50 degrees.

Neither him nor the "chuckers" were breaking any ICC rules when they were bowling as has been discussed before. It was only when the rules changed that they were caught out.

The rules for chucking have been the same since 2004, the entirety of Ajmals international career.

 

[Bilal7]

Well from memory the OP was in complete denial about the whole chucking thing in the first place and it is fairly obvious this stretches from that.

Especially since he refuses to extend it to the Windies bouncer rule - by his logic that is discounted because any other team could bowl 6 bouncers per over - likewise any other batsman could use a bat like Warner

And any other bowler could bowl with a 50 degree flex.

 

[Bilal7]

The rules for chucking have been the same since 2004, the entirety of Ajmals international career.

The rules regarding the angles they used to determine the flex changed when the testing institute changed.

 

[HitWicket]

The rules regarding the angles they used to determine the flex changed when the testing institute changed.

So you're claiming that Ajmal was always breaking the rules, but got away with it due to testing procedures?

Compared to Warner who has never broken the rules?

 

[Convict]

And any other bowler could bowl with a 50 degree flex.

Yeah. But it was still against the rules because the ICC was gutless.

 

[Bilal7]

So you're claiming that Ajmal was always breaking the rules, but got away with it due to testing procedures?

Compared to Warner who has never broken the rules?

I am claiming that either both of them did or both of them did not.

 

[Bilal7]

Yeah. But it was still against the rules because the ICC was gutless.

And these enormous bats are clearly against the rules but the ICC were too gutless to do anything about it till now.

 

[Gilly]

I am claiming that either both of them did or both of them did not.

Which rule is Warner breaking?.

 

[Convict]

The rules regarding the angles they used to determine the flex changed when the testing institute changed.

No. The Big 3 change came in and as part of the trade off Australia and England got the ICC to finally enforce the chucking rules.

 

[Convict]

And these enormous bats are clearly against the rules but the ICC were too gutless to do anything about it till now.

They're not.

There has never ever been a rule against bat width.

Now I agree that there obviously should be one but there never has been one

 

[Bilal7]

They're not.

There has never ever been a rule against bat width.

Now I agree that there obviously should be one but there never has been one

Wrong. There was a rule in place regulating bat sizes but it was incredibly lenient and was created after some genius decided to walk onto the pitch with a bat as wide as the stumps.

Just like how some here claim that the ICC were incredibly lenient with the testing of chuckers.

 

[HitWicket]

Wrong. There was a rule in place regulating bat sizes but it was incredibly lenient and was created after some genius decided to walk onto the pitch with a bat as wide as the stumps.

Just like how some here claim that the ICC were incredibly lenient with the testing of chuckers.

Yet there's never been a rule regulating the depth of a bat.

 

[Bilal7]

No. The Big 3 change came in and as part of the trade off Australia and England got the ICC to finally enforce the chucking rules.

What? The ICC asked the umpires to be more strict in calling potential chuckers. Ajmal, Narine, etc were called before the Big 3 takeover so it didn't make a difference to them. Why was Ajmal found to have a flex of under 10 in one institute and over 45 in another? Because the ICC were bullied by the PCB?

 

[Gilly]

Wrong. There was a rule in place regulating bat sizes but it was incredibly lenient and was created after some genius decided to walk onto the pitch with a bat as wide as the stumps.

Just like how some here claim that the ICC were incredibly lenient with the testing of chuckers.

There has always been a rule on bat width and as far as I know the Indian team is the only team that has broken that rule, as far as bat depth goes there never has been any rule and due to bat makers changing how they prepare the bat face with less compression to achieve a bigger sweet spot but also reducing the strength of the blade batsmen have always been able to use bats with any size depth.

Even at this point in time Warners bats are not against the rules.

 

[Gilly]

What? The ICC asked the umpires to be more strict in calling potential chuckers. Ajmal, Narine, etc were called before the Big 3 takeover so it didn't make a difference to them. Why was Ajmal found to have a flex of under 10 in one institute and over 45 in another? Because the ICC were bullied by the PCB?

The difference in testing came when the testers would overlay the bowlers action from a match to the action he used in the lab when tested. This meant that the bowler could no longer use one action on the pitch and then use a different action when tested meaning the testing was comparable to his action on the field.

 

[Bilal7]

Yet there's never been a rule regulating the depth of a bat.

No, there hasn't been one for depth.

 

[Gilly]

No, there hasn't been one for depth.

So inform us which rule Warner is breaking.

 

[HitWicket]

No, there hasn't been one for depth.

So you want to put Warner in the same basket as Ajmal because hes breaking a rule that never existed?

 

[Convict]

Wrong. There was a rule in place regulating bat sizes but it was incredibly lenient and was created after some genius decided to walk onto the pitch with a bat as wide as the stumps.

Just like how some here claim that the ICC were incredibly lenient with the testing of chuckers.

Yeah but a rule that Warner never broke.

 

[Convict]

What? The ICC asked the umpires to be more strict in calling potential chuckers. Ajmal, Narine, etc were called before the Big 3 takeover so it didn't make a difference to them. Why was Ajmal found to have a flex of under 10 in one institute and over 45 in another? Because the ICC were bullied by the PCB?

Previous testers bent over backwards to get bowlers off so you didn't have to actually bowl like you did in game.

 

[Bilal7]

The difference in testing came when the testers would overlay the bowlers action from a match to the action he used in the lab when tested. This meant that the bowler could no longer use one action on the pitch and then use a different action when tested meaning the testing was comparable to his action on the field.

This is not true since match footage was always used to ensure that bowlers replicated their match actions in the laboratory. Cameras were not invented two years ago and the experts conducting the tests didn't get to where they are by being unwary of these school-boy tricks.

There has always been a rule on bat width and as far as I know the Indian team is the only team that has broken that rule, as far as bat depth goes there never has been any rule and due to bat makers changing how they prepare the bat face with less compression to achieve a bigger sweet spot but also reducing the strength of the blade batsmen have always been able to use bats with any size depth.

Even at this point in time Warners bats are not against the rules.

Warner's bats are far wider and thicker than the vast majority of other bats today. That gives him an unfair advantage and that is why the MCC has taken steps to remove this advantage.

 

[Statsman]

This is not true since match footage was always used to ensure that bowlers replicated their match actions in the laboratory. Cameras were not invented two years ago and the experts conducting the tests didn't get to where they are by being unwary of these school-boy tricks.



Warner's bats are far wider and thicker than the vast majority of other bats today. That gives him an unfair advantage and that is why the MCC has taken steps to remove this advantage.

But did he break any rule?

 

[Bilal7]

Yeah but a rule that Warner never broke.

So you want to put Warner in the same basket as Ajmal because hes breaking a rule that never existed?

He's caught out by the newly invented rules just like Ajmal, Hafeez and Narine were after the changes that the ICC made in 2014. It definitely is unfair to fault Warner for breaking a rule that never existed but likewise, it is unfair blame those spinners for breaking rules that did not exist (with regards to how the angles will be measured).

Previous testers bent over backwards to get bowlers off so you didn't have to actually bowl like you did in game.

You did.

 

[Convict]

This is not true since match footage was always used to ensure that bowlers replicated their match actions in the laboratory. Cameras were not invented two years ago and the experts conducting the tests didn't get to where they are by being unwary of these school-boy tricks.

Experts conducting the tests got their position by agreeing to get the findings their employer wanted.


[/quote]
Warner's bats are far wider and thicker than the vast majority of other bats today. That gives him an unfair advantage and that is why the MCC has taken steps to remove this advantage.[/QUOTE]



No. Bats like that drastically distort the balance between bat and ball but any batsman can use them.

They are correctly getting restricted (as pushed for by the Australian media) but that doesn't mean that the batsmen using them broke any rules.

 

[Gilly]

This is not true since match footage was always used to ensure that bowlers replicated their match actions in the laboratory. Cameras were not invented two years ago and the experts conducting the tests didn't get to where they are by being unwary of these school-boy tricks.



Warner's bats are far wider and thicker than the vast majority of other bats today. That gives him an unfair advantage and that is why the MCC has taken steps to remove this advantage.

Warners bat is not wider than anyone's bat, its the same width as everyone's bat, bats have a standard width and Warners bat is no wider than anyone's bat.

No the testers did not overlay the bowlers action with match replays in the earlier testing procedures and because they detected differences in match and testing actions they introduced it to ensure testing maintained integrity.

 

[Statsman]

This has also gotten out of hand because the ICC has not been policing its own rules.

He's caught out by the newly invented rules just like Ajmal, Hafeez and Narine were...

From not policing its existing rules to changes in rules.

 

[Convict]

He's caught out by the newly invented rules just like Ajmal, Hafeez and Narine were after the changes that the ICC made in 2014. It definitely is unfair to fault Warner for breaking a rule that never existed but likewise, it is unfair blame those spinners for breaking rules that did not exist (with regards to how the angles will be measured).



You did.

The chucking rules existed.

Everybody with any clue bar the testers knew the players were chucking. Ajmal even tried some joke excuse about a car accident or something so he definitely knew it.

I don't blame a player for taking advantage of the inability/lack of interest to police a law but they knew.

Its things like this that separate people who have actually played cricket and those who haven't.

Those of use who played knew exactly why all the right arm finger spinners (and not the other types of spinners) were chucking and also how impossible it is to not know you are chucking when you are.

 

[jeetu]

The only controversial incident regarding cricket bat that i can recall is Dennis Lillee's aluminium bat.

 

[Bilal7]

Warners bat is not wider than anyone's bat, its the same width as everyone's bat, bats have a standard width and Warners bat is no wider than anyone's bat.

No the testers did not overlay the bowlers action with match replays in the earlier testing procedures and because they detected differences in match and testing actions they introduced it to ensure testing maintained integrity.

You are mistaken on both accounts. By width, I mean the depth of the blade and Warner's is far wider than the average bat being used today.

The testers did do exactly that. This myth has been going around this forum because a couple of posters just couldn't wrap their heads around the difference between the two tests. Like I said, the experts conducting the tests are not idiots.

Experts conducting the tests got their position by agreeing to get the findings their employer wanted.

Warner's bats are far wider and thicker than the vast majority of other bats today. That gives him an unfair advantage and that is why the MCC has taken steps to remove this advantage.[/QUOTE]



No. Bats like that drastically distort the balance between bat and ball but any batsman can use them.

They are correctly getting restricted (as pushed for by the Australian media) but that doesn't mean that the batsmen using them broke any rules.[/QUOTE]

Why would the ICC be completely okay with chucking four years earlier, to the extent that they were willing to fake the test results just to protect a player from a bankrupt board? Why were there no whistleblowers? Where is the evidence for your allegations? What changed in those four years? Did the ECB and CA have less sway over the ICC than the likes of the PCB and WICB before the Big Three takeover?

 

[Adijazz1706]

This is not true since match footage was always used to ensure that bowlers replicated their match actions in the laboratory. Cameras were not invented two years ago and the experts conducting the tests didn't get to where they are by being unwary of these school-boy tricks.



Warner's bats are far wider and thicker than the vast majority of other bats today. That gives him an unfair advantage and that is why the MCC has taken steps to remove this advantage.

You are prolly arguing with the guys who would call Murali a chucker even today, it's just a waste of time

 

[Bilal7]

From not policing its existing rules to changes in rules.

Context is important. Sometimes it's best to use a person's own logic against them to prove a point.

The chucking rules existed.

Everybody with any clue bar the testers knew the players were chucking. Ajmal even tried some joke excuse about a car accident or something so he definitely knew it.

I don't blame a player for taking advantage of the inability/lack of interest to police a law but they knew.

Its things like this that separate people who have actually played cricket and those who haven't.

Those of use who played knew exactly why all the right arm finger spinners (and not the other types of spinners) were chucking and also how impossible it is to not know you are chucking when you are.

How many doosra spinners have you encountered in your playing days in Australia? I have been playing cricket for over a decade now so please keep your assumptions in check.

You are claiming there was a massive conspiracy and that the ICC was faking the results of bowling tests. Where is your proof?

 

[Bilal7]

You are prolly arguing with the guys who would call Murali a chucker even today, it's just a waste of time

Always good to expose the double standards though. Won't call it hypocrisy because some of these guys are pretty good posters in general.

Anyways, will be interesting to see what path this new change will lead us to. Time to sleep.

 

[Adijazz1706]

The chucking rules existed.

Everybody with any clue bar the testers knew the players were chucking. Ajmal even tried some joke excuse about a car accident or something so he definitely knew it.

I don't blame a player for taking advantage of the inability/lack of interest to police a law but they knew.

Its things like this that separate people who have actually played cricket and those who haven't.

Those of use who played knew exactly why all the right arm finger spinners (and not the other types of spinners) were chucking and also how impossible it is to not know you are chucking when you are.

Ashwin is a rt arm finger spinner who hasn't been tested IIRC, would you call him a chucker? Because you called all such bowlers chuckers right here. Could bring you a lot of hell from Indian PPers so think about it

 

[Convict]

Ashwin is a rt arm finger spinner who hasn't been tested IIRC, would you call him a chucker? Because you called all such bowlers chuckers right here. Could bring you a lot of hell from Indian PPers so think about it

Fair. I'll rephrase that.

Why only right arm finger spinners were chucking (plus of course quicks who wanted that speed boost)

 

[JaDed]

But didn't Ajmal lie as well correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Convict]

Context is important. Sometimes it's best to use a person's own logic against them to prove a point.



How many doosra spinners have you encountered in your playing days in Australia? I have been playing cricket for over a decade now so please keep your assumptions in check.

You are claiming there was a massive conspiracy and that the ICC was faking the results of bowling tests. Where is your proof?

The ICC was not faking the results of bowling tests. They instructed the testers on the parameters by which to do the tests - designed to pass people.

Big Three then happened and the political situation of the ICC changed and the parameters for the tests were changed accordingly.

By the way - I've actually never called Ajmal a cheat because I believe that the ICC gave him effective carte blanche but I believe you are really drawing parallels that aren't there.

 

[Convict]

But didn't Ajmal lie as well correct me if I'm wrong.

He claimed it was a car accident or something.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

All I can see is the OP having an illogical rant.

Saeed Ajmal and others who got banned flouted the rules and took advantage of a body that didn't care to implement the laid rules strictly. Only after they were caught napping with growing media pressure did they get strict.

Warner hasn't done anything wrong as he didn't break any rule.

 

[SandyB]

A common way to understand for people who have no common sense.

There is a traffic signal and the policemen have said you can't cross the light when it's red.

There is no policeman so some cars regularly cross the traffic signal when the light is red.

One day they are caught.

You complain, that the traffic signal turned red too soon, the red signal used to be of different color before, and any other ridiculous point you can come up with, instead of following the rules.

1 year later, cops enforce a rule that all those who are crossing on yellow light, must also stop.

The person arrested for crossing red light comes to police after 1 year and says, arrest everyone who was crossing the yellow light for past one year, because rule is to not cross yellow light.

I hope some people can see light.

Superb explanation !

Those bowlers were hard done by the crackdown. They couldn't just change actions in a jiffy . But putting Warner in the same level of guilt as those banned bowlers is uncalled for.

A similar situation in Warner's case will be this : ICC doesn't put systems in place to check bat depth mandatory before each match. Warner carries a number of bats in his kit,some exceeding the depth limit. In between the match he gets his bat changed to a thicker bat(exceeds limit). Umpires have no way of checking on field whether the bat is allowed or not.
This would be an equivalent of what the bowlers did.

 

[volcyz]

The new Pakistani batsmen will suddenly hit massive sixes like the old Afridi and Razzaq if they were using the "KABOOM" like Warner.

 

[Hawkeye]

Ajmal and Narine were both cleared to bowl, just like Warner was cleared to use his ginormous bats. ICC changed their rules which is what caught them out.

Ajmal is the biggest chucker and thrower the game has ever seen.

It's shocking to see any cricket follower defend him, his throws go AGAINST the game you watch and love! Yet you're always defending him!

Can't we just put off our tinted biased glasses? Look I liked him too when he was winning games for us.

But I also knew he's throwing the ball, specially in the last couple of years before he got banned. He may have gotten cleared somehow in the first test way early, he may not have been chucking as much that time.

But it's also a fact his chucks were horrendously huge. Never EVER has anyone been proven to be throwing at 40-50 degrees.

And it always was against the cricketing rules. Stop it.

 

[Hasan123]

Ajmal is a chucker and Warner is an FTB regardless of the size of his bat.

 

[Mamoon]

No.

This is a desparate thread. The chuckers are cheaters; Warner is not.

It also worth noting that Warner will still remain a destructive batsman, but someone like Ajmal became pants as soon as he started bowling legally.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Saeed Ajmal was not a Chucker Initially and he was cleared by ICC not PCB or Ajmal brigade.

In the last series his action deteriorated considerably because He was 36 plus and had played tons of Int Cricket in last 3 years plus he had recently played a long FC county season where he had maximum workload for his team throughout the season. Due to this his shoulders had worn-out completely and natural body reaction fell on the elbows to generate the revolutions on the ball. This resorted to chucking between
30-45 degrees. He was reported and got banned.

If you see footage of his bowling in last Int series he played before Ban and compare it with footage of 1 year before Ban you will find considerable difference.

With New Protocols he would have been fine with his all othet variations except doosra (1 year before Ban) while his doosra would have been in range of 15 to 25 degrees.



As far as Warner is concerned he used the Bats which were legally permissible to be used. Hence He did nothing wrong.


Good Move by ICC.

 

[Mamoon]

The big hitters will still hit big. Big bats have given them a negligible edge only.

The biggest six at Lord's was hit by Albert Trott in 1899 with a stick bat. No batsman with the so-called super bats has been able to top that, and that's just one example.

Those who think that the big hitters are big hitters because of the big bats don't understand why some players, whether in cricket, golf or baseball, are capable of hitting it big.

It's not just about strength either, otherwise Dwayne Johnson would be hitting longer drives than Bubba Watson.

Warner or Maxwell will not turn into Fawad Alam because of the restrictions.

 

[yasir]

The big hitters will still hit big. Big bats have given them a negligible edge only.

The biggest six at Lord's was hit by Albert Trott in 1899 with a stick bat. No batsman with the so-called super bats has been able to top that, and that's just one example.

Those who think that the big hitters are big hitters because of the big bats don't understand why some players, whether in cricket, golf or baseball, are capable of hitting it big.

It's not just about strength either, otherwise Dwayne Johnson would be hitting longer drives than Bubba Watson.

Warner or Maxwell will not turn into Fawad Alam because of the restrictions.

I don't think big hitting is a big issue, its the edges, that fly all over that is headache for bowlers. You don't want to see, good balls edges to boundaries all the time, its not good contest between bat and bowl. We will see more of this in test and ODI series. When top hitters will few edges to slip and mishit caught on boundary, confidence and style of batsman will get effected...

Sort of like chucking issue, Ajmal was bowling doosra at 95-100 km/h like regular off-spin, same variation in pace, in order to do that we was bending it more(40 degree), same was true for Narine, that was caught the eyes of regulators as getting out of control... Same is true for bat size and to me also size of boundaries, both have to be clamped down. We need to bring good bowlers back into game and make contest between bat and bowl even.

 

[Syed1]

They're not.

There has never ever been a rule against bat width.

Now I agree that there obviously should be one but there never has been one

By the same logic Ajmal's action was deemed fit and legal by the previous testing method and then the testing method was changed and his action was declared as illegal. Then you lot jumped onto the bus claiming he has always been a chucker.

So that new laws have come which restricts bats and Warner has been using a bat thicker then the newly implemented laws, going by your logic, Warner has always been a cheat.


You can't have your cake and eat it too.