09 Apr 2004 21:56:17
Murali Tests - Like a Poker Game

While playing poker one night I caught someone dealing from the bottom of
the deck. I didn't say anything at the time but during a break in the game
I pulled him aside and told him that I saw him cheat. I suggested that he
leave and never to play in our school again.

I didn't call him on the spot because an event like dealing from the bottom
of the pack cannot be proved. The cheater can simply show that he deals
cards from the top of the pack by dealing the next hand legitimately.

Testing Murali is no different. He can simply go and bowl legitimate balls
that (by the way would never take a wicket in the under 11's) for the
duration of the official tests. What does this prove? It proves that he
can bowl (read chuck) an illegal ball whenever he wants and bowl legitimate
balls when he is under the microscope.

Murali and Aktar both chuck but they only do it when they need to.

There is only one fair way to deal with them. When they chuck in a game and
they are caught out they should be disqualified from bowling immediately not
just for that game but for a season of cricket - just like a cheat in cards.

If you think I am being too tough see if you can recall these too instances.

When Murali was first called in Australia Richie Benaud said 'It might be
tough on the bowler but what about the batsman who may loose his spot in the
team because he is dismissed by an illegal delivery'. Murali has 500
potential victims in that category.

Another example is Adam Gilchrist. On 70+ in a test against Pakistan he was
bowled by an outright chuck from Aktar - the only dangerous ball he bowled
all day. He only bowled it when he needed to.

These days if you are a bowler and you cheat that seems to be OK. The only
punishment seems to be a close look at your action by a panel of bad

It seems that even a back yard card game has higher ethics than Cricket in