Record Breaking 6 hitting by Angelo Mathews

Angelo Mathews broke a record previously held by Ricky Ponting for most 6s in an ODI innings by a captain, by taking the Indian bowling attack to the cleaners and leaving captain Kohli helpless on their own turf...

Record Breaking 6 hitting by Angelo Mathews from UppercuT on Vimeo.

The Mystery of Mystery Within: CHUCKING & ICC

First off, to clear the barrels let's look at what modern day "chucking" is. Most are under the impression that chucking is bowling with a 'bent' arm, which is only a half-truth. Chucking does involve bending of arm at elbow, but in order to conclude that a bowler is 'chucking', he/she HAS to "straighten" the (once bent) arm at the point of release. The degree of angle between this bent arm and the straightened arm is called the flex. According to contemporary rules this flex needs to be within 15 degrees. So technically a bowler CAN bowl with a bent arm and not straighten it at the point of release, and he/she IS STILL bowling within the rules of the game. Muttiah Muralitharan's case is similar to this scenario as his arm is deformed at birth and does not straighten fully at any point.

Mystery within the closed doors of ICC labs

According to the ICC recent crackdown on chucking is taking place under supervision of two on-field umpires and the 3rd umpire and match referee. The mechanism they are using to conclude and report bowlers as acknowledged by the ICC is 2D imagery and video, and of course the naked eye for obvious cases. This is fine on field,  but the disturbing fact is that in the recent fall out of ICC with University of Western Australia(the place that used to be the Mecca for testing suspect actions), it has come to light in the new ICC labs at Cardiff and Brisbane they are using same ‘layman’s techniques to test the bowlers according to Prof. Jacqueline Alderson of University of Western Australia there are some serious concerns about the new methods adopted by the  new ICC labs:

• The method of judging the moment of ball release - and whether this could disadvantage spin bowlers
• The repercussions of placing markers in different places
• The influence of both elbow 'flexion' and 'extension'
• The continued use of 2D imagery in testing

One of most essential points Prof. Alderson stresses is that new and inexperienced researchers have changed video frame that they consider as the release point of the ball. As aforementioned in the first paragraph, the ‘release point’ decides whether the bowler chucks or not, as opposed to just the ‘bent arm’.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/789319.html

The questions remains why did ICC want to have their own labs to test the bowlers? Why did they steal the research of UWA in order to start their own labs? Why they were not satisfied with the previous work of UWA?

ICC's reluctance to publish the actual procedure they follow behind the close doors of their labs gives huge credibility to all the above questions. As former Pakistan captain Rameez Raja recently questioned: why wouldn't the ICC want to make the process transparent? After-all isn't the sole purpose of this recent crackdown(according to ICC itself) to 'clean up' cricket?

An interesting under current that is making waves is the school of thought that ICC wanted to re-route the UWA’s income of testing bowlers to their own ICC accounts. The labs under the ICC do not provide services for free just like the UWA did in the past. Judging by the recent re-structuring of ICC, it will be foolish to think that the ‘mission control’ of ICC would pass on an opportunity to increase their revenue. Would the cricket boards around the world send all their suspect action bowlers to be cleared by ICC labs? Would it go down as far as private academies sending their players to be cleared? Only the time will tell.

Mystery of reporting

It’s very obvious that Australia and England are no fans of mystery spin, and to be fair to them majority of mystery spinners at present comes with the done package of the ‘bent arm’. So they decided to have a level playing field and call everyone without ‘discrimination’ ( or so they claim).

May be it is true(the without discrimination part) as it is, India decided to rest a bowler who didn’t even play in all of their Test matches this season for the now defunct West Indies ODIs. So what was the reason behind the ‘resting’ a bowler who didn’t even bear the brunt as a spearhead of his bowling attack. Could it be as simple as follows:

Bent arm of Ashwin

Straightened arm of Ashwin

As the 2D frames above indicate (the way ICC now use to test the bowlers) R. Ashwin clearly BENDS his arm in the delivery stride and STRAIGHTENS it at the point of release. Now the mystery is why the ICC umpires fail to see it if they manage to spot the ‘bend’ even in a bowler such as Mohammed Hafeez whose ‘bent arm’ is barely visible to the naked eye.

Was it really the ‘rest’ Ashwin needed during the ODIs or was it ‘protection’ he needed with a major ICC tournament around the corner?

It seems the “mystery” is no longer a feature limited to spinners but also a feature of newly structured ICC’s “modus operandi” ……

ICC crackdown on chucking: Proper testing or Witch-hunt sponsored by Big 3?

After Pakistan’s bowling spearhead Saeed Ajmal became the latest bowler to be banned after undergoing biomechanical tests at one of the new ‘ICC preferred’  labs, it is clear now ICC is cracking down on ‘bent arms’ and means business. Up to date five international bowlers have been called for suspect action: Shillingford(WI), Williamson(NZ), Senanayake(SL) , Gazi(BAN), Utseya(ZIM) and Ajmal(PAK), (in an interesting coincidence a certain match official was part of reporting of 4 of those bowlers).

None of the above bowlers can be termed as new comers in the cricket scene, as they’ve been playing cricket at international level for some time now, some even were reported earlier in their careers and cleared. So what changed? The Big 3 happened. It’s obvious now, that after the shift of powers at ICC, they have taken firm decisions on ‘bent arms’. While England and Australia were never fans of ‘doosras’ or mystery spin, India did allow some liberty. So did India get ‘out-voted’ within the power group; 2 to 1? Or did India agree to it as long as their ‘best interests’ kept untouched?

And ‘best interests’ are not confined to monetary assets, but extends right up to their ‘contractual obligations’ in other words ‘cricketers’.

While acknowledging the fact that all six recently reported bowlers do have jerks in their elbows; curiously ICC’s ‘detecting mechanism’ has failed to get its scope adjusted on two star bowlers namely; Sunil Narine(WI) and Ravi Ashwin(IND). Both are new-breed bowlers who rely on mystery to get their scalps and both are highly successful at top level as well. What’s more  I fail to see any aspect in their bowling actions different from their reported counterparts; Shillingford, Williamson, Senanayake, Gazi

      

In fact Ravi Ashwin was even brave enough to acknowledge and go on record saying that he is actually trying to gain advantage by making full use of ‘allowance of flex’ by ICC:

Ashwin bowling in Asia Cup 2014

“…..I'd never bowled in full-sleeves before. So I wanted to see how it would feel. And I just wanted to see if you can get more revs on the ball, if you can do a little bit with your elbow, as much as, that is. That's what it was all about. You can get a lot of advantage with these things. So why should I lag behind if someone else is getting a competitive edge?......"                                                                                        -espncricinfo: www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/732475.html

 

So what’s stopping ICC’s watchdog from making a move on these two top level ‘mystery bowlers’? This brings us back to India’s ‘best interests’. Both Ashwin and Narine are considered as highly integral parts of respective IPL franchises Chennai Super Kings and Kolkata Knight Riders. In other words ‘IPL darlings’

 So does a lucrative IPL deal now guarantee ‘chucking immunity’ among many other perks? making a bowler feel so safe, that he comes out openly saying that he s going to push the limits??

 University of Western Australia

Another interesting fact that got lost in the recent ‘suspect action’ saga is the curious case of University of Western Australia. Once the centre for biomechanical testing for suspect action bowlers, now being methodically shunned by ICC completely. Another change of heart after the power shift of Big 3? University of Western Australia was involved in testing and clearing both Muralitharan and Ajmal(when he was first reported). Now ICC prefers or ‘recommends’ the labs at Cardiff and Brisbane, and the latest one will be located in India. So what made ICC move on from University of WA? Were they not satisfied with their testing methods? Were they too lenient? 

Interestingly Professor Jacqueline Alderson of University of Western Australia had this to say about current testing methods used by labs at Cardiff and Brisbane:

“………Any scientific procedure that can impact on the ability of a player to play the game has to be an independent process and the procedures by which those decisions are made must be open to peer review, and must be available to bowlers and their boards to ensure that process is open and fair. I don’t think it’s in the best interests of cricket……..”

www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/uni-of-wa-questions-independence-of-crickets-chucking-procedures-20140813-103qh8.html

 

According to Prof. Alderson, the current testing procedures are not as transparent as it used to be in University of WA. As smaller the differences may be(according to ICC) between testing methods of new ICC labs and University of WA, we as fans and outsiders are left with questions like: What of the bowlers who were tested and cleared at University of WA? And crusaders against chucking such as Martin Crowe believing and insisting that likes of Murali was ‘lucky’ to avoid the new ICC testing labs….. Or is this all part of a freak-child as a result of an illegitimate power-grab?