Murali's whispering death

The perennial debate over the legality of Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action took a peculiar turn last week with the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka issuing a statement condemning Michael Holding for remarks made on Murali's action in April's edition of Wisden Cricket Asia Monthly.

Holding, the former West Indian fast bowler nicknamed 'Whispering Death' and now a television commentator, supported comments previously made to Wisden by former Indian spinner Bishen Bedi that Murali's action is illegal, with Bedi likening his bent-elbowed delivery to that of a javelin thrower. Holding was reported on Wisden.com as claiming he agreed with Bedi "110%."

Evidently the BCCSL, aware of the lingering skepticism over Murali's action it denies exists, pays close attention to any comment passed on it. What the BCCSL apparently objects to, and claims to have taken up with the ICC, is that Holding made his remarks while a member of the ICC's Advisory Panel on Illegal Deliveries, which is presumably regarded as a conflict of interest.

That, in itself, is debatable. Sunil Gavaskar, whom the BCCSL later quote in defence of Muralitharan, is Chairman of the ICC Cricket Committee - Playing, but that did not prevent him from making critical comments of England's cricket. So long as it does not affect their judgement as ICC representatives, former players are surely still entitled to their opinions.

As we have seen with Gavaskar and Holding, their professional commitments call for them to express their views and they can't be expected to be ICC members at the exclusion of all else. Gavaskar was spoken to by ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed so presumably Holding can expect no more than that and that's where the BCCSL's formal protest will end.

The BCCSL states it was obligated to issue its public statement since Holding made his comments "very publicly" and since those comments were "harmful to the game of cricket as a whole."

How it reached that conclusion is not clear. Match-fixing is harmful to cricket. Cheating is harmful to cricket. Indeed, throwing can be harmful to cricket, if an illegal action is copied by youngsters. The BCCSL may vehemently disagree with Holding, but there is no real basis to claim that his comments on Muralitharan are harmful to cricket.

What really makes the BCCSL's posturing ludicrous is that all Holding has actually done is agreed with the earlier remarks by Bedi. The basis of the BCCSL's condemnation of Holding is this: "Mr. Holding is reported to have said that he agrees with Mr. Bishen Bedi's recent comments which alleged that Mr. Muralitharan's bowling action is illegal." That's it. He agrees. The "unwarranted and irresponsible allegations" for which the BCCSL "unreservedly condemns" Holding are actually Bishen Bedi's! Where was the BCCSL's condemnation of Bedi, the person who actually had a point of view to put forward?

The BCCSL thinks it strange that Holding and Bedi have only expressed their views ten years after Murali made his debut and in that regard they have a point. It could be argued that if they saw something wrong with Murali's action they had a duty to speak out earlier. Perhaps if all former cricketers came forward now with their thoughts on Murali's action, positive or otherwise, the BCCSL would have no further reason for complaint.

In defending Murali's action, the BCCSL ironically quotes "the great Australian leg-spinner" Shane Warne and also refers to praise from "no less a person than Sunil Gavaskar." Apparently, Gavaskar and Warne's thoughts are considered worthy, whereas Holding's and Bedi's are not. Gavaskar is called "arguably one the finest cricketers ever." So what is Holding, then? In appointing him to work with Shoaib Akhtar last year, the ICC said Holding was "widely regarded throughout the world for the purity of his action." Might he be qualified to express a view regarding what does and does not constitute a legal delivery?

Interestingly, the BCCSL uses Warne's recent "1000 wickets" statement as an endorsement by Warne of Murali's action, when that was not necessarily his intention at all, especially since Warne recently credited himself, Mushtaq Ahmed, Anil Kumble and Saqlain Mushtaq as reviving spin bowling. Muralitharan's name was conspicuously absent from his short list. Claiming Murali might take 1000 wickets could have been Warne's diplomatic way of expressing exasperation.

Conspiracy theories abound for the motives of Bedi and Holding. The BCCSL cites as a "strange coincidence" that their comments have been made in the run up to the Champions Trophy in September, as well as the World Cup, a full year away. Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror took a different tact, preferring to point to the fact that Sri Lanka are due to tour England this year and that Wisden Cricket Asia Monthly is a subsidiary of Wisden, an English publication. There is also the notion that opponents want to "put him out of the game before he destructs them," as the Daily Mirror quoted one unnamed analyst as saying.

Whatever, there is a need to view it as a sinister campaign of some description. Sri Lankan cricket cannot afford to concede that some impartial observers simply have doubts about the legitimacy of Murali's action, no more and no less. That would be tantamount to admitting that Muralitharan throwing the ball was a possibility, which is not a palatable consideration.

Another defence offered of Murali is that he has not been called by a host of umpires in all countries bar Australia. Bedi told Wisden in his interview that he had asked Srinivas Venkataraghavan why he didn't call him and said that umpires are afraid for their jobs. According to Bedi, Venkat was prevented from umpiring the 1996 World Cup final because he said he would call Murali if he thought he threw. Given the furious backlash against Hair and Emerson, the possibility that umpires are afraid is not an unreasonable argument.

The BCCSL do not want to face it, but the fact some still view Murali's action with suspicion means there is at least some justification for continued questioning, irrespective of tests. In a way, the stance of the Sri Lankan board is similar to the point blank refusal of some to countenance the possibility match-fixing. The rumours persisted and were eventually proved true.

None of this is to say that Murali actually throws. For now, the tests have cleared him and he remains a truly great bowler, worthy of more accolades than he has received. But that does not and should not preclude anyone, particularly former greats who just might know something about bowling, from expressing an opinion on the legality of his action.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw