Muralitharan tests are 'pointless', says Gilchrist
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Australia vice-captain, Adam Gilchrist, said yesterday that the biomechanical testing of Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action is pointless because the clinical conditions cannot be compared with the cricket field.
The Australia vice-captain, Adam Gilchrist, said yesterday that the biomechanical testing of Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action is pointless because the clinical conditions cannot be compared with the cricket field.
Muralitharan's action was reported to the International Cricket Council after the Test series against Australia last month with the match referee Chris Broad expressing concerns about the delivery of his "doosra". Muralitharan was ordered to undergo testing at the University of Western Australia, where experts assessed the delivery of the "doosra" - which spins away from right-handed batsmen - and have since forwarded the findings to the Sri Lankan cricket board.
"I have got to question why they bother doing a test like that, whether it is Murali or anyone else in world cricket," Gilchrist said. "There is nothing similar between the laboratory and what you are facing in the Test matches." Jacque Alderson, one of the biomechanical experts involved in the case, said it would be difficult but not impossible for Muralitharan to change his technique without being noticed during testing.
"I think it would be highly unlikely that someone will be able to change their action inside that environment," Alderson said. "To be honest I don't know any other way it could be tested." She added that it took the same amount of time for Muralitharan to rotate his shoulder in testing as in match conditions and "that is probably the only validity check we could make".
Muralitharan was no-balled for chucking in 1995 by the Australian umpire Darrell Hair, although he was later cleared by the ICC after tests determined that a slight abnormality of his elbow gave the illusion that the off-spinner was chucking.
"What I find interesting is they [the ICC] say you don't need to look at his general off-break anymore because we have cleared that," Gilchrist said. "A bowler can change what they want every single delivery. I don't see that you can say they are cleared, we don't need to look for it anymore."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments