Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

hopeforthebest wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:How about the problem that SL thought he was alright to bowl, and actually defended him?

They have a history of being in denial about their players and have not been slow to accuse the accusers of racism when it suits them. That accusation often frightens people off.

The worrying thing is how far he was outside the limits. As soon as he was put under testing there was no defense of his action, and from the sounds of things he had been working with his Coach to try and get an action together that he could pass the tests with.

This result will no doubt see any future defence from Sri Lanka met with a large dose of cynism.

The worst is that he played a majour role in SL winning the one day games and pocketing the winners cash. So it's profitable to have such a bowler available and play him even after he's reported which I'm sure England would not have done with one of their bowlers.This 21 day rule should not be available to bowlers who've been previously tested for suspect actions.

Making_Splinters wrote:Most people agree that umpires can't tell the difference between 15 and 16 degrees of flex in real time. Here we have a bowler who is bowling at three times the limit, even when he is deliberately trying to alter his action, and yet he has not been no balled on the field of play. That is a little bit worrying.

Worrying, perhaps, but not surprising. Umpires who apply the laws of the game can find themselves out of favour with the ICC.

D/L wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:Most people agree that umpires can't tell the difference between 15 and 16 degrees of flex in real time. Here we have a bowler who is bowling at three times the limit, even when he is deliberately trying to alter his action, and yet he has not been no balled on the field of play. That is a little bit worrying.

Worrying, perhaps, but not surprising. Umpires who apply the laws of the game can find themselves out of favour with the ICC.

I say worrying because this isn't a marginal case, and the report states that his in game action would be even further past the limits. If umpires are not going to call bowlers who are so far beyond the limits then the way bowler's actions are dealt with in game needs changing.

Is Senanayake banned from all cricket then or just internationals? If it's all cricket then i doubt we'll see him bowling for a long time, needs a completely new action.

SL are planning Sananayaka's return for the WC and hopefully the 7 ODI series at home against England. I bet they find a way.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/co ... 60585.html

dan08 wrote:Is Senanayake banned from all cricket then or just internationals? If it's all cricket then i doubt we'll see him bowling for a long time, needs a completely new action.

The reports say just international cricket.

If Senanayake was so over the permitted flex, and still allowed to bowl, it does make me wonder about others. Though he appeared to throw more than anyone else, even Ajmal.

Swann was talking on tms (I thought he was fine on the radio) about bowling a doosra. He said a Pakistan bowler in CC showed him how to do it. And with great effort Swann managed to bowl a bad doosra. So he asked the other bowler how you managed it without throwing, and was told 'you don't'!

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

dan08 wrote:Is Senanayake banned from all cricket then or just internationals? If it's all cricket then i doubt we'll see him bowling for a long time, needs a completely new action.

The reports say just international cricket.

If Senanayake was so over the permitted flex, and still allowed to bowl, it does make me wonder about others. Though he appeared to throw more than anyone else, even Ajmal.

Swann was talking on tms (I thought he was fine on the radio) about bowling a doosra. He said a Pakistan bowler in CC showed him how to do it. And with great effort Swann managed to bowl a bad doosra. So he asked the other bowler how you managed it without throwing, and was told 'you don't'!

I heard that story from Swann and I must say his presence on TMS has been a real coup.

Williamson has been banned from bowling for NZ. How long has it taken to get to that decision, while he's been allowed to throw? At least not every action is getting waved through now.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Williamson has been banned from bowling for NZ. How long has it taken to get to that decision, while he's been allowed to throw? At least not every action is getting waved through now.

Will he still be bowling in th CC I wonder, even if the ban doesn't cover domestic games, surely not.

I think he's allowed to. I hope he doesn't.

Confirmed that Kane Williamson's ban extends to County games.

Just means Yorkshire are likely to bowl Adam Lyth more often, or Jack Leaning to turn his arm.

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

sussexpob wrote:Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

He was on report when bowling against Warwickshire and I think if we in England are so concerned about illegal bowling it was a bad move of Yorkshire to bowl him until he was cleared. Not in the right spirit even if within the law.

Should they be punished ? Possibly

Will they be ? Not a chance.