The raging debate triggered by Bedi when he called Murali a "Shot putter" is very sad. It is even sadder that players like Ranatunga has also joined in matching the critical language.

Supporters of Murali bank upon ICC declaring his action legal. But for all those who have watched cricket from a long time, it is clear that Murali's action is not the same as what Prasanna or Venkataraghavan or Lance Gibbs would use. In fact his action is exactly what we normally use when we play cricket inside a house using a rubber ball which does not turn easily. Bedi has identified the right word for his action stating that it resembles that of a shot putter.

No doubt it hurts Murali since this questions the world records that Murali is being credited with. At the same time we cannot deny that Bedi is entitled to his opinion that had he bowled with the similar action, he would have been even more succesful than he otherwise was.

Some cricketers of the current generation including Ranatunga who was credited with a cricketing brain good enough to be considered for coaching Team India seem to have no knowledge of the bowling capabilities of Bedi during his playing days. The best  endorsement would come from the English side under Lewis which toured India when Bedi was at one of his best forms. At that time, Bedi would come in when the ball was absolutely new and cause the English batsmen (Except perhaps Alan Knott) instantly tie themselves into a knot.

He may be old now and he may also lack diplomacy in communication, might have even taken on Gavaskar and Prasanna at different times. But all this does not make him a lesser bowler than any who have played the game. Ranatunga's comments are therefore a reflection of his inadequate knowledge about Bedi's capabilities.

It would be better for Sri Lankan players to remain silent and let the comment pass rather than taking up the task of legally proving that "Murali's bowling action is not like that of a shot putter".

We agree that Bedi cannot stand as an umpire and call Murali for throwing in today's match since ICC has made a rule that his action is legal. But it is necessary to note that umpires have time and again called Murali for throwing and it was only after ICC redefined the permitted bend in the arm to cover Murali's recorded bend that his action became legal. Bedi is entitled to disagree with ICC since he comes from an era when the bowling actions were very clean. Also, as a "Left handed-offspinner" Bedi can understand how twisting of the wrist when the arm is bent can change the effect of spinning. He is therefore an expert who has the necessary qualification to comment on Murali's action and also disagree with ICC. Hence Ranatunga's contention that Bedi is an "Old man interested only in publicity" which interalia implies that he has no credentials to comment on Murali's action will not stand the test of law.

The only points on which any defamation may be arguable is on the use of the word "monster" which of course is less defamatory than Ranatunga calling Bedi a "Dog".

It would be interesting if Bedi files a  case against Ranatunga for defamation and we will have an opportunity to test defamation law in the  cricketing context.

 

Naavi

August 18, 2007