The doosra can be bowled with a legitimate action: Muttiah Muralitharan

Muttiah Muralitharan

In a career spanning almost two decades, Muttiah Muralitharan picked up 800 Test wickets and 534 ODI wickets. He was part of Sri Lanka’s World Cup winning team in 1996 and also reached the World Cup final against India in 2011, which was his final ever appearance for Sri Lanka.

But the journey for the Sri Lankan in international cricket was anything but easy. His action came under severe scrutiny from many quarters, and he was reported for a suspect action on more than one occasion.

Got used to all the scrutiny: Murali

When enquired about the criticism he received with regards to his action, the 42-year-old said that as time passed, he got used to it.

“It was always there. I got used to it. I always believed that to every action there is a reaction. Everyone won’t support you. There will be 50 per cent supporting you and 50 per cent against.

“If there are people saying things against you, there is no point upsetting yourself. I can’t prove to 100 or 75 per cent of the people. It is impossible,” Murali said, in an interview to the Daily Mail.

The ICC’s 15-degree tolerance limit in regards to elbow extension was introduced in 2004, and many felt it was done to make it easier for Muralitharan. After conducting a few tests on Murali’s bowling action, it emerged that there was a 38-degree bend since his arm goes over his shoulder during the delivery swing and at the point-of-release the bend reduces by 11 degrees.

However, the fact is that had Murali flexed his arm from 38 to about 22 degrees at the point of delivering the ball, he probably would have only one leg to stand on today.

“People don’t understand this. Even past cricketers don’t understand,” he said.

Murali, however, feels that he would not have been the same bowler if he wasn’t born with the bent arm.

He was first reported for a suspect action in 1995 when umpire Darrell Hair no-balled him seven times during the Boxing Day Test against Australia. He was once again called in 1998 by umpire Ross Emerson in an ODI at Adelaide. On this occasion, he was backed by his captain Arjuna Ranatunga and he led the Sri Lankan team off the park for a brief while.

No issues with Hair and Emerson: Murali

But Murali seemed to hold no grudges against either of the umpires and instead called it a human error.

“Every man makes mistakes. Two people’s opinion can’t be the judge of a career,” he added.

He also disagreed with those who believe that the doosra cannot be bowled legally.

He was initially not allowed to bowl that delivery in 2006, but after undergoing tests at the University of Western Australia, he was cleared to bowl the delivery.

He said that he doesn’t care about what people have to say about him bowling legally or not.

“Let people shout whatever they want! It’s up to them. I never wore long sleeves. Never. Unless it was cold conditions, I bowled with short sleeves. I am clear. If you are throwing, you will know. Your elbow moves so much, you will know,” Murali said.

Test a lot of bowlers before altering the system: Murali to ICC

When asked about the recent crackdown on chucking by the ICC, the former Sri Lankan spinner said that he is in favour of the system and wants each bowler to be tested before the current system is altered. Several leading international cricketers like Saeed Ajmal and Sachithra Senanayake were barred from bowling recently after their actions were found to be exceeding the 15-degree limit.

“I’m in favour of the system because it’s the only way to prove a bowler is chucking or not. But I can feel sympathy for them because they should have been tested before, not now.

“I want the ICC to test everyone, test hundreds of bowlers and then come up with a system with the right number of degrees. Then it will be fair to everyone.

“It’s difficult to say if 15 is the right number of degrees until they do the proper research. But they have to verify how much the fast bowlers are bowling the bouncer – some are bowling it at 17 degrees. That means you are giving someone an unfair advantage,” he said.