Arthur Crabtree wrote:...I had a theory that Murali was allowed to bowl because he was from an emerging cricket nation, and success for them would help broaden the appeal of international cricket...
shankycricket wrote:Leave Shilly aside for a second, how on earth is Marlon Samuels still allowed to bowl? Surely you are either allowed to bowl or not? Surely you can't be telling a bowler what kind of deliveries he can and what he can't? And how exactly do you define a "faster one"? Are the umpires supposed to check the speed gun every delivery?
cricketfan90 wrote:shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!
Albondiga wrote:cricketfan90 wrote:shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!
It's a batsmen's game --- never a truer saying. Why should batsmen worry about a man who "throws" at 55 mph.?????
backfootpunch wrote:the ICC have suspended shane shillingford for an illegal action and marlon samuels is not allowed to bowl quicker deliveries
ajmal is still fine to "bowl" though
mikesiva wrote:backfootpunch wrote:the ICC have suspended shane shillingford for an illegal action and marlon samuels is not allowed to bowl quicker deliveries
ajmal is still fine to "bowl" though
This comparison is what's stirring discontent in WI management circles....
backfootpunch wrote:Albondiga wrote:cricketfan90 wrote:shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!
It's a batsmen's game --- never a truer saying. Why should batsmen worry about a man who "throws" at 55 mph.?????
the same reason a batsmen cant use a bat that is two inches wider, its against the rules
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests