Talk:Muttiah Muralitharan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Muttiah Muralitharan is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article Muttiah Muralitharan, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

This is probably one of the more controversial pages about cricket in Wikipedia. I dispute the NPOV of several statements. Some of the statements read more like Sri Lankan media claims than neutral description. For example:

Hair was widely criticised by players and fans alike, with Don Bradman quoted as saying it "was the worst piece of umpiring I have ever encountered".

Maybe the Don said that, but Hair was also lauded by many, as finally having the guts to do something about what many had considered a dubious bowling action for several years.

Waugh went on to say that he felt Muralitharan's action was perfectly legal.

Another quote saying Murali's action is legitimate. Just as many prominent cricketers and commentators have made statements about Murali's action being clearly illegal. Why don't any of those appear here?

There is speculation that the match referee's actions were an attempt to de-rail Muralitharan's attempt to become the all-time leading wicket taker. Former players like Arjuna Ranatunga believe this to be a 'white conspiracy' with some Australians and Englishmen wishing to get the name Muralitharan expunged from cricket records. Ranatunga asserted that Muralitharan was being picked on because of his skin colour.

While true, this is hardly balanced. Many outside Sri Lanka see Rantunga's assertions as a persecution complex and an attempt to hang the emotive label of "racism" on what is simply a legitimate concern over the legality of Murali's bowling action.

In summary, I think this article needs a serious NPOV treatment, with care to address both sides of the issue. I do not want to swing things the other way and end up with bias in the opposite direction, nor do I want to cause a reaction by anyone who may agree with the view currently presented. So I'm leaving this comment here to see what other people think. dmmaus 03:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree, you can't only tell one side of the story. Any neutral discussion of Murali's action would have to include what his detractors say as well (the "javelin thrower" comments come immediately to mind). Shane King 01:07, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

From an English perspective, it does seem that Australian observers are much more hostile overall to Murali than those over here. There are a number of detractors in England too, certainly, but I'd say the considerably majority of cricket fans here were on Murali's side in this, especially since the recent data showing that more or less everyone chucked! Loganberry 01:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the controversy happening on our doorstep probably contributes to that, as well as many former Australian players being amoung his most vocal critics. I also think that the Australia-Sri Lanka cricketing relationship isn't the best for a variety of other reasons (Darren Lehmann's racial slurs, Ajuna Ranatunga's long series of jibes, etc), and that carries through to the fans. Finally, Murali is probably seen as a whinger by many (especially after he decided not to tour), and that's not something that goes down well with Australian culture. So there are a variety of reasons why Australians are less likely to be on his side. Shane King 07:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

That all sounds very plausible. On the other hand, there are some people in England who'd characterise the Australian reaction as whinging at a bowler good enough to get them out! (For the sake of honesty, I have mixed feelings about Murali - I desperately want him to be the genius he appears to be, but I can't shake the doubts entirely.) Loganberry 00:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly agree there have been whingers on both sides. It probably does appear bad that the country most vocal about him is one that has been able to dominate most bowlers, with Murali being one of the few exceptions. Personally, I think his action has always probably been within the letter of the law (or at least no worse than plenty of other bowlers). The spirit? I'm not so sure, that's a hard question to answer. Shane King 00:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I really dont think Bishan Bedi's comments of "why should a bowler be allowed to chuck because he has a defective arm?" are appropriate anymore, seeing how a study conducted by the ICC have found almost all bowlers to be 'chuckers'.

If Bishan Bedi restracts the comments, then sure. As far as I know, he hasn't, so we're to assume he still holds the same view. The NPOV policy says we're to report on which people hold a certain point of view, regardless of whether that view is correct or rational. Shane King 11:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not have an obligation to report Bedi's comments. Muralitharan has plenty of detractors, many of whom make far more rational arguments than Bedi. Why not report them instead?

I reported Bedi because he's one of the most vocal and well known. He's also not Australian, which is a bonus, since the article at the time made it seem like all the opposition was coming from Aussies. You're welcome to put other perspectives in if you feel they'd be more appropriate though. Be bold and add them in! :) Shane King 11:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I added some criticism of Muralitharan's action by former greats Michael Holding and Dean Jones, comments which they have since retracted. I'm not going to remove Bedi's comments if you want them to remain. I just feel that they are very rude and not quite appropriate.

Good additions, I like them. I agree Bedi's comments are rude, but I think that's really the point. An article about Murali needs to show the level of passion he's invoked. If one of his critics sounds rude, who's the one who looks bad, Murali or the critic? Shane King 13:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Doosra 2 Spelling 3 Bradman's comment 4 Website 5 Holding and Bedi retraction 6 Wisden's "Greatest Bowler of all Time"

[edit] Doosra

It would appear that what one's eye sees and the mind does not comprehend, better to create a web of doubt around it. Try convincing some more like minded people and you have a ready made controversy. Let us agree that the game of cricket is also constantly evolving with newer talent, run making machines like Lara, centuries making machines like Tendulkar, faster bowling from Brett Lee, swing bowling from Imran, Akram and so on. So "doosra" could be another such trick in the bag of the bowler to make a batsman struggle for runs or survival. No one says anything about the illegal action when a batsman is out of sync with the well known regulation shots. There are reverse sweeps, flicks and all that which probably were entered in the cricket books as the game became older and more and more expertise was added to it. So dear umpires have a heart, be sport and let the quality of cricket and difficulty level increase instead of going after someone who is sure to be more successful than.........

[edit] Spelling

Murali has maintained that he spells his name Muthiah Muralidaran. Most people, from news agencies to official shirt makers, spell it differently - how should it appear here? --Tom 08:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the main article should use 'Muralitharan', the spelling by which I think most of us would agree he is best-known to English speakers. However, I've set up Muthiah Muralidaran as a redirect to this article. --Ngb 10:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for the claim he spells his name as Muralidaran? Seems to be we should mention it. I'm rather suprised he doesn't at least try to force the Sri Lankan Cricket team to spell his name properly if that's how he spells it, I guess it just isn't a great issue for him Nil Einne 19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradman's comment

Australia's greatest ever cricketer, Sir Donald Bradman quoted as saying it "was the worst piece of umpiring (he had) ever encountered"

I would like to see some proof for this. For one thing, it is *very* unlikely that DBG will make a controversial statement like this (unless it is Roland Perry 'quoting' Don). For another, a google for "worst piece of umpiring" Murali Bradman comes up with 31 hits across 10 sites, but *all* of those are copies of the Wiki article. Tintin 04:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This line was added by an IP editor [1] 19 months ago and who hasn't done anything since then. One other change made in the above edit also looks very fishy.

Considering how carefully Bradman usually used words to avoid controversies, this comment looks very suspect. I am going to delete that line in a day or two, unless some authentic proof turns up by then. Tintin 05:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call, delete it. I was going to write a comment about how the (he had) paraphrase was ambiguous anyway. Be sure to remove the quote from Timeline of Cricket as well when you do this. Thanks! -- postglock 11:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The line is deleted. Please do not revert it without a decent source to back you up. Tintin 14:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources added. Previous poster just had "worst piece of umpiring" instead of "worst example of umpiring". 202.67.105.151 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Bradman didn't say that exactly, what he said was "For me, this was the worst example of umpiring that I have witnessed, and against everything the game stands for" (source: http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/135717.html) Pubuman 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Pubuman

[edit] Website

Can I just say that the website recently added on to this article is really well researched and written. Certainly clears up a lot of issues the average cricket fan may have about the no ball rule in relation to throwing. Could I request either the author of that website or someone else to incorporate some of that info into a subsection of the current no ball article or even make a new article for it? This issue is certainly a very important one in cricket and I don't think the info available on wikipedia currently is enough. 202.67.109.206 11:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holding and Bedi retraction

The link provided as a ref for Holding and Bedi's retractions is dead, but the article in question is reproduced here. It does't mention Bedi and only quotes Holding second-hand. I've replaced the link with a full quote that gives Holding's response in his own words. It appears that as recently as December 2005 there was still bad blood between Murali and Bedi, so I'm skeptical that he's retracted his criticism. --Muchness 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wisden's "Greatest Bowler of all Time"

"In 2002, Wisden named him the greatest bowler of all time..." Perhaps it's already been referenced somewhere in the article, in which case you could direct me to the link. However, this statement is rather striking. Certainly, he was " Wisden 2002 Cricketer of the Year," but I doubt that they would claim that he was the greatest bowler "of all time." For a while, he was the highest wickettaker (in test matches)but as of writing, Warne has overtaken Murali (again).

Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong.If it's true, it should be referenced at the very least. Um, I'm new to this Wikipedia discussion thing, so if I've breached any of the conduct rules in editing my own piece of discussion, let me know. Matt L Dunedin 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Matt L Dunedin

Wisden did come up with some (IMNSHO, pointless) top 100 lists at that time. Like a list 100 best innings (with Bradman's 270 in 1936-7 at No.1) and 100 bowling efforts. They may have made some lists about the bowlers and batsmen too. Tintin (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right, perhaps if someone could find a link to it that would clear things up. Cheers for the info. Matt L Dunedin 08:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find the original one but this is one of the many that refer to it. Tintin (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Muralitharan wasn't Wisden's cricketer of the year in 2002, that was in 1999, and the same player cannot be named twice. Pubuman 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Pubuman