Like Dominica, Windward Islands and West Indies off-spinner Shane Shillingford, T&T’s off-spinning “doosra” bowler, Sunil Narine, has had his bowling action, his future international bowling career even, nullified by tested results.

When Shillingford had his bowling action problems, twice, I opined then that he was not at fault, since everyone around him, those who should have better guided him, from coaches in Windward Islands to those he operated under for West Indies, had only been telling “Shilli” that he was doing nothing incorrectly in delivery.

In Narine’s case, that assertion is tripled. His club coach in T&T, his coaches when he played for T&T and relatively few times when he played for WI, even personnel at his home cricket board, have generally been telling him the same thing too for years: “Boy Sunil, there is nothing wrong with your action at all. It is all just jealousy because of your big successes. There is a big conspiracy against you!”

read more at Trinidad Guardian

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

It did not need any international umpire or high tech device to tell that Narine is a thrower – that fact has been pointed out here on many occasions. Only the most native bias or one who does not know the difference would demur

I agree 98% with the statements of Collin Croft. However, I disagree with him on this statement: "Shillingford and Narine have never been “reported” in the Caribbean." In the case of Narine, I believe Croft is right, but that's not the case with Shillingford, as I remember quite clearly a match between Leewards and Windward in Anguilla, in the early 2000's, when Steve Buckner, one of the officiating umpires, called Shilli for pelting and the negative comments made by commentators and later by west Indians. They accused Buckner of trying to kill Shilli because he is a small islander and many questioned him for not calling Muri and other international bowlers for pelting. So Croft needs to get his facts right and he also needs to help Beaton with his action.

In reply to sandisha

The issue with Shillingford and the correct perception viz a vis Bucknor is that Shillingford was 17 years old and was called for throwing and the same Bucknor umpired Lawson and instead spent time advising Lawson's coach on his action without EVER calling him. So it was a jaundiced approach.

Our own Michelle Macdonald did an interview regarding Lawson which is required reading.

Regarding the process the ICC changed the process post Murali so that umpires were more sensitive about calling players in matches and instead reporting them for referral and testing.

Anyone who could umpire Murkesh Persad and Samuels and Lawson and not say a thing obviously has an issue with consistency.

Required reading

Link

According to de manager he was reported but it was not an official report. If ah laff ...

More spin

Even more spin

Dey well knew dat de HPC was not equipped to clear anybody

De green light

A green light but

[b]In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com[/

I think it is unfair though for Croft to blame that on the coaches. Coaches, whether during domestic competition or tests only get to work with a team that was selected to play for their various teams and therefore they have no time to change a bowlers action. Crofti needs to blame the WICB for not having a proper program in place that is aimed at developing our cricketers. By this I mean, a program where the services of former test players go to our villages and schools, with the view of identifying talents and help develop them. That's where actions and techniques could be corrected. I am tired of this embarrassment of Shilli, Narine, and let's not forget Jermaine Lawson.

In reply to Maispwi

What is also important is that neither player thought they had a problem.

In reply to sandisha

All cricketers are coached from U15 level so coaches, many of whom are WICB certified, have to take some of the blame

In reply to sandisha

Of course its the coaches. The WICB does certification courses for coaches and they are supposed to refer any actions to the cricket committee.

Instead there is ducking and diving.

In reply to Commie
I agree with you but to say no Caribbean umpire ever called them is incorrect. On the other hand, we need to stop the blame game work on correcting those called. The fact is, Shilli was called and was ignored. Trying to blame Buchner for not calling Lawson makes no sense, because Lawson is a Jamaican like Buchner, and I am sure Buckner spoke to the Jamaican cricket authorities about Lawson' action.

In reply to sandisha

You don't seem to get it do you or you are being deliberately obtuse.

The reason Bucknor was slammed was that he offered ZERO advice to Shilly and called him and did not call Lawson despite umpiring him and knowing he threw. See the difference ?

This inconsistent approach bred the thought process that Lawson was unfairly treated and also that Shilly was unique as someone who threw.

Murkesh Persad was far more blatabt as an offie who Bucknor umped and yet he was never called.

Later on Athanaze was referred under the new process.

If a system has to work people like Bucknor have to be fair and seen to be fair, and not making statements with one bowler and sympathetic gestures to others.

In reply to Commie

How can they when management at every junction is telling dem otherwise.

It wasn't even an official report.

Cleared to play by the HPC knowing full dat de HPC eh have no testing equipment.

If your action is tested and remedial work recommended, it should be obvious dat dere was a problem but dey were never retested after de period of remedial work until Narine's problems last year.

I saw Shilli in tests against India,and you didn't need slo mo to see he was pelting,Narine also pelted but it wasn't that glaring,he was probably more difficult to judge without technology.What is so shocking is people like Murali and Ajmal got away with it at the higest level,Seninayka is cleared and still looks worst than Narine,I also think there is some jealousy regarding Narine,isn't he West Indian.

In reply to granite

Ah tink you mean Trinbagonian

In reply to sandisha

Shillingford wasnt ignored either.

The reason he made the WI team was that he actually had corrected most or his issues with his off spinner action. When he added the doosra was when he started doing well and he was throwing that and called for his doosra.

This is why he was banned from bowling the doosra and when he came back he struggled to take wickets and started throwing his offie the longer his bowled.

That is exactly what happened to Narine as well.

Is a slippery slope.

In reply to Commie

We all crucified coach Gibson for calling out players techniques and fitness, and now we want to blame them for bowlers pelting. I Know for sure that Gibson questioned Narine's action in private but it never went public since Narine was a key player to bring success to windies

In reply to sandisha

Gibson would have been crucified by the Trinis.

At the end of the day what is supposed to happen is the coaches should capture it from youth cricket.

Both Shilly and Narine went straight into senior cricket without much of a coaching path.

In reply to Commie

Narine played in the 2006 U19 WC with Roach, Pollard. Johnson etc but disappeared after dat before showing up in de T20 competition in 2011

In reply to Commie
Thanks for understanding what I have been trying to say all along. The problem of Shilli and Narine should have been captured and corrected in under 15 level. Once you made it to First Class level it is difficult to correct and be successful. Not only that but coaches at that level CANNOT and SHOULD not be the ones to identify and correct actions of players that were picked to represent their territory or West Indies. Else both players and territories will hate the coach.

I once walked into a Fc squad practice and an office was pelting square. I asked the bowling coach if he was chucking. They said they didn't know. I asked how is chucking defined, they didn't know. Then I said he really looks bad. The head coach said, no problem, they don't call pelting anyway. Then the bowling coach, like Croft said it might be below 15 degrees.

Both were unaware and not concerned as the guy does well in limited overs.

To the 15 degree rational for not intervening, an ivc recommendation is that its at 15 degrees that the elbow straightening becomes visible to the naked eye, so if you see it, its most likely pass 15. This is what the umpires use to flag suspicion before going to video replays.

At the like local level, once you see it ... Do something.

Now that we seem to have exhausted all criticism and blame
how do we go from here, cause you will have youths coming up that will have questionable actions, and not just spinners but seamers, alike.

How do we improve?

PS. I think we are being targeted, however, pelting/throwing is cheating and should be removed from the game, on all levels and not based on nationality.

In reply to positiveg

We need a testing facility in the region to begin with and coaches have to try to discourage any suspect actions.

The problem is as long as people feel that there is some leeway dey will try to get as much as they can from the 15 degree rule

In reply to Commie

And because allyuh loved, as per usual, playing the victim by questioning Bucknor where is Flingy now? Out of international cricket same way!

In reply to Maispwi
A test facility maybe nice but not necessary, a simple high speed camera.

Cricket on the whole need to answer this: why do bowlers throw?

Pacers normally for speed and bounce: get more powerful, be better biomechanically, better skill.

Spinners: to bowl with more revolutions or change of direction of revolutions; skill, strength.

In short to create an advantage which they have to train better to achieve.

In reply to Commie

Mention something bout Ja and Capt. Jerk Pork in yuh ackee and salt fish

In reply to Blackbird

We cannot continue to live in the dark ages. While high speed cameras are required particularly as demonstration tools for the afflicted, testing is essential to provide the confidence of being in the clear.

The testing will also provide some bio mechanical info dat can be used to help rectify some of the problems.

Theoretically it appears simple but in practice it is difficult to get even kids to change once they have started bowling with a kink

In reply to Maispwi
An understanding of bowling biomechanics is a prerequisite, this is sadly lacking.

We like calling for the big things and externalizing responsibility.

The hard part is not to determine if the person is throwing but to change a well ingrain motor pattern.

If they are throwing they are not bowlers, they are pitchers..

Should the WICB spend money on him again to rectify his pelting?

I say no.

In reply to TheTrail
Yes, the organisation has to mature and be bigger than a player.

The ultimate responsibility re throwing is with the coaches.
Here in Canada I used to coach a youth team, 10-12 age group.
We participate in a yearly school tournament. Don't do it any more because of frustrations with how the competition was run especially the way they forgo some of the basic rules. One of the main ones was bowling.
There was an easing of the rules when it came to bowling. Player flung the ball and thee were no consequences.
It was very frustrating when I coach my player to bowl using the techniques and the teams we played against played under no such guidelines.
When I complain, I was told they are youths let them enjoy the game.