Editing Muttiah Muralitharan (section)

==Controversy of bowling action==
Throughout much of his international career, Muralitharan's action was suspected of contravening the [[Laws of Cricket|laws of the game]] by [[Throwing (cricket)|the straightening of his bowling arm during delivery]]. Although he was cited three times, subsequent biomechanical testing led the ICC to clear him of the charge and permit him to continue bowling.

Biomechanical testing conducted on four occasions fueled debate as to whether his action was in fact illegal or actually an illusion created by his allegedly unique ability to generate extra movement both at the shoulder as well the wrist, which enables him to bowl the doosra without straightening the elbow.<ref name="Film Murali in armbrace with Shastri">{{Cite news |last=Hilal |date=14 December 2008 |title=Video1 – Murali bowling in arm-brace |url=http://www.islandcricket.lk/videos/murali-bowling-arm-brace |work=Island Cricket |access-date=14 February 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090217154316/http://www.islandcricket.lk/videos/murali-bowling-arm-brace |archive-date=17 February 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Murali bowling with brace">{{Cite news |last=Nicholas |first=Mark |date=8 July 2004 |title=Brace yourselves for new footage that may prove Murali's not bending the law |url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/07/1089000223490.html?from=storylhs |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date=10 February 2008 |archive-date=23 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110923231539/http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/07/1089000223490.html?from=storylhs |url-status=live }}</ref>

===First throwing citation and testing===
[[File:Muttiah Muralitharan in SCG 2005.jpg|thumb|Muttiah Muralitharan bowling in SCG for ICC World&nbsp;XI]]
Initial concerns as to whether Muralitharan's action contravened the [[Laws of Cricket|laws of the game]] by [[Throwing (cricket)|straightening his bowling arm during delivery]] broke into open controversy after Australian [[umpire (cricket)|umpire]] [[Darrell Hair]] called a "[[no-ball]]" for an illegal action seven times during the [[Boxing Day]] Test match in [[Melbourne]], Australia, in 1995. Australian Sir [[Donald Bradman]], universally regarded as the greatest batsman in history, was later quoted as saying it was the "worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for. Clearly Murali does not throw the ball".<ref name="Bradman admirer">{{Cite news |last=Austin |first=Charlie |date=7 December 2004 |title=Bradman was an admirer of Murali |url=http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135717.html |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=1 January 2008 |archive-date=24 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071224130839/http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135717.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Bradman defence">{{Cite news |last=Sygall |first=David |date=5 December 2004 |title=Murali no chucker: Bradman |url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/04/1101923389044.html?oneclick=true |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date=29 December 2007 |archive-date=10 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100810071230/http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/04/1101923389044.html?oneclick=true |url-status=live }}</ref>

Ten days later, on 5 January 1996, Sri Lanka played the West Indies in the seventh ODI of the triangular World Series competition, in Brisbane. Umpire [[Ross Emerson]] officiating in his debut international match, no-balled Muralitharan three times in his first over, twice in his second and twice in his third. It was an identical tally to that called by Hair on Boxing Day and (like Hair) Emerson made his calls from the bowler's end while his partner stood silent. The main difference was that several no-balls were for leg-breaks instead of the bowler's normal off-breaks.

In February 1996, just before the World Cup, Muralitharan underwent biomechanical analysis at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology under the supervision of Prof. Ravindra Goonetilleke, who declared his action legal in the conditions tested, citing a [[congenital defect]] in Muralitharan's arm which makes him incapable of fully straightening the arm but gives the appearance of fully straightening it. Although under the original Laws a bowler's arm did not have to be fully straightened to be an illegal delivery,<ref name="Hong Kong Report by Dr Goonetilleke">{{Cite news |last=Goonetilleke |first=Ravi |title=Biomechanical Tests done on Muttiah Muralitharan at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology |url=http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/murali01.html |access-date=28 January 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080203131214/http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/murali01.html |archive-date=3 February 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=IngentaConnect Technical Note – Legality of bowling actions in cricket |date=1 October 1999 |publisher=Ingentaconnect.com |doi=10.1080/001401399185027 |pmid=10582506 |last1=Goonetilleke |first1=R. S. |journal=Ergonomics |volume=42 |issue=10 |pages=1386–97 }}</ref> it was concluded that his action created the 'optical illusion of throwing'. Based on this evidence, ICC gave clearance to Muralitharan to continue bowling.<ref name="Profile ESPNcricinfo" />

===Second citation and testing===
Doubts about Muralitharan's action persisted, however. On the 1998–99 tour to Australia he was once again called for throwing by Ross Emerson during a One Day International against England at the [[Adelaide Oval]] in Australia. The Sri Lankan team almost abandoned the match, but after instructions from the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, the game resumed.<ref name="Emerson Calls Murali and Ranatunga takes the team off">{{Cite news |last=Hilal |date=7 May 2007 |title=Ranatunga takes the team off |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PFsMqGfdqs&watch_response | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150606161450/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PFsMqGfdqs&watch_response| archive-date=2015-06-06 | url-status=dead|via=YouTube |access-date=15 March 2008}}</ref> The Sri Lankan captain at the time [[Arjuna Ranatunga]], was later fined and given a suspended ban from the game as a result.<ref>{{Cite news |date=23 April 1999 |title=''e-cyclopedia'': Chucking: Why the fuss? |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/263398.stm |publisher=BBC News |location=London |access-date=1 January 2008 |archive-date=28 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071228150506/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/263398.stm |url-status=live }}</ref> It later emerged that at the time of this match Emerson was on sick leave from his non-cricket job due to a stress-related illness and he stood down for the rest of the series.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/256472.html |title=ESPNcricinfo – Officious officialdom |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=8 August 2014 |archive-date=15 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815084415/http://www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/256472.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Muralitharan was sent for further tests in Perth and England and was cleared again.<ref name="Profile ESPNcricinfo" /> At no stage was Muralitharan requested to change or remodel his action, by the ICC. Up to this point in his career (1999) Muralitharan primarily bowled two types of deliveries, namely the [[off-break]] and the [[topspinner]]. He had not yet mastered the doosra.

===Third citation and testing===
Muralitharan continued bowling, taking his 500th Test wicket in the second Test against Australia in Kandy on {{Nowrap|16 March}} 2004. At the end of the series his [[doosra]] delivery was officially called into question by match referee [[Chris Broad (cricketer)|Chris Broad]]. At the [[University of Western Australia]] (Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science), three-dimensional kinematic measurements of Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling arm were taken using an optical motion capture system while he bowled his doosra. Muralitharan's mean elbow extension angle for the doosra delivery was 14°, which was subsequently reduced to a mean of 10.2° after remedial training at the university. The findings reported to ICC by the [[University of Western Australia]]'s study<ref name="The Murali Report">{{cite report | author=Elliott, B., Alderson, J., Reid, S. and Foster, D. | title = The Murali Report, Biomechanics Laboratory, School of Human Movement and Exercise Science, The University of Western Australia | publisher=University of Western Australia | year = 2004}}</ref> was that Muralitharan's doosra contravened the established ICC elbow extension limit of 5° for spinners.<ref name="ICC's high-tech solution too late for Murali">{{Cite news|last=Pierik|first=Jon|date=14 November 2007|title=IICC's high-tech solution too late for Murali|work=The Daily Telegraph|url=http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22754759-5006069,00.html|access-date=9 March 2008|archive-date=30 December 2012|archive-url=https://archive.today/20121230200859/http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/cricket/iccs-new-bowling-test/story-e6frey50-1111114870167|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="The Hindu 2004-04-29">{{Cite news |date=29 April 2004 |title=Murali's 'doosra' doesn't conform to ICC stipulation but should be allowed: UWA report |url=http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/29/stories/2004042905562200.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040702170502/http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/29/stories/2004042905562200.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=2 July 2004 |location=Chennai, India |work=[[The Hindu]] |access-date=1 January 2008 }}</ref><ref name="Rediff Murali report">{{Cite news |date=15 May 2004 |title=The Rediff Special: The Murali Report |url=http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/may/15murali.htm |work=Rediff.com |access-date=15 December 2007 |archive-date=28 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100828152907/http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/may/15murali.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

Under the original throwing Laws of Cricket, the umpires officiating were under an obligation to call "no-ball" to a delivery that they were not entirely happy was absolutely fair. This Law gave the umpires absolutely no discretion. In 2000, the Laws were changed to put an allowable figure of straightening of 5° for spinners, 7.5° for medium pacers and 10° for fast bowlers in an attempt to more clearly define what was legal.<ref>[http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/cricket/351/] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185540/http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/cricket/351/|date=27 September 2007}}</ref> But these figures proved difficult to enforce due to umpires being unable to discern actual amounts of straightening and the differentiation between the three different allowable figures. Testing in Test match conditions is not currently possible "when the identification of elbow and shoulder joint centres in on-field data collection, where a shirt is worn, also involves large errors. In a match the ability to differentiate anatomical movements such as 'elbow extension' by digitising segment end-points, particularly if you have segment rotations, is extremely difficult and prone to error.<ref name="Special Report on the Controversial doosra">{{cite report|title=Special Report on the Controversial doosra bowling action based on UniSA scientific study: As per the invitation made by David Richardson, General Manager, ICC|author1=[[Mahinda Pathegama Pathegama]], M.|author2=Göl, Ö|publisher=EIE, University of South Australia|year=2004}}</ref> This is certainly the case with spin bowlers. It is therefore not surprising that laboratory testing is preferred, particularly for spin bowlers, where an appropriate pitch length and run-up can be structured. This is clearly the only way to test players, where data would be able to withstand scientific and therefore legal scrutiny."<ref name="Rediff Murali report"/>

An extensive ICC study, the results of which were released in November 2004, was conducted to investigate the "chucking issue". A laboratory kinematic analysis of 42 non-Test playing bowlers done by Ferdinands and Kersting (2004) established that the 5° limit for slow and spin bowlers was particularly impractical.<ref name="Ferdinands, Kersting bowling action research">{{Cite journal|title=An evaluation of biomechanical measures of bowling action legality in cricket |journal=Sports Biomechanics |volume=6 |issue=3 |date=September 2007 |pages=315–333 |doi=10.1080/14763140701489884 |pmid=17933195 |last1=Ferdinands |first1=R. E. |last2=Kersting |first2=U. G. |s2cid=40042760 }}</ref>

Due to the overwhelming scientific findings, researchers recommended that a flat rate of 15° tolerable elbow extension be used to define a preliminary demarcation point between bowling and throwing. A panel of former Test players consisting of [[Aravinda de Silva]], [[Angus Fraser]], [[Michael Holding]], [[Tony Lewis]], [[Tim May]] and the ICC's [[Dave Richardson (South African cricketer)|Dave Richardson]], with the assistance of several biomechanical experts, stated that 99% of all bowlers in the history of cricket straighten their arms when bowling.<ref name="ICC study">{{cite web |url=http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141558.html |title=ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |date=10 November 2004 |access-date=20 December 2006 |archive-date=14 February 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070214110807/http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141558.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Only one player tested (part-time bowler [[Ramnaresh Sarwan]]) reportedly did not transgress the pre 2000 rules.<ref name="ICC study" /> Many of these reports have controversially not been published and as such, the 99% figure stated has yet to be proved. In fact, Muralitharan stirred up controversy when he said during an interview with a Melbourne radio station that [[Jason Gillespie]], [[Glenn McGrath]] and [[Brett Lee]] flexed their arms by 12, 13 and 14–15 degrees respectively, although it is unclear as to where Muralitharan quoted these figures from. Muralitharan was censured by the Sri Lankan Cricket Board for these comments.<ref>{{Cite news|date=18 November 2004 |title=Muralitharan censured over throwing remarks |url=http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200411/s1246049.htm |publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC Sport (Australia)]] |agency=Reuters |access-date=31 January 2008 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

The ICC Executive was asked to ratify the panel's recommendations at the ICC's Annual General Meeting in February 2005. Based on the recommendations the ICC issued a new guideline (which was effective from {{Nowrap|1 March}} 2005) allowing for extensions or hyperextensions of up to 15 degrees for all types of bowlers, thus deeming Muralitharan's doosra to be legal.<ref name="ICC Revision of bowling regulation">{{Cite news|date=5 February 2005|title=ICC relaxes bowling regulations|work=BBC Sport Cricket|location=London|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4238403.stm|access-date=10 February 2008|archive-date=19 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419083723/http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4238403.stm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="What is an illegal action?">{{Cite news |date=17 November 2005 |title=What is an illegal action? |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/4404874.stm |work=BBC Sport Cricket |location=London |access-date=9 February 2008 |archive-date=24 December 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101224161920/http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/4404874.stm |url-status=live }}</ref>

Explaining why the maximum level of 15 degrees was arrived at, panel member [[Angus Fraser]] stated "That is the number which [[Sports Biomechanics|biomechanics]] says that it (straightening) becomes visible. It is difficult for the naked eye to see less than 15 degrees in a bowler's action. We found when the biceps reached the shoulder the amount of bend was around 165 degrees. Very few bowlers can get to 180 degrees because the joint doesn't allow that.&nbsp;... but once you go further than 15 degrees you get into an area which is starting to give you an unfair advantage and you are breaking the law".<ref name="What is an illegal action?" />

===University of South Australia study===
<!-- This section needs to be improved. The focus should be on the implications of this research on Muralitharan and his bowling. From the current wording it is unclear what the results and the conclusions are-->
The original decision of disallowing the doosra bowling action was hailed widely as justifiable on account of being scientifically based. Hence, a team of Australian scientists<ref name="anthropometric assessment">{{cite report|title=Use of imprecise biomedical image analysis and anthropometric assessment in biomechanics with particular reference to competitive cricket|author=Pathegama, M., Göl, Ö, Mazumdar, J., Winefield, T. and Jain, L|publisher=[[University of South Australia]]|year=2003–2004}}</ref> representing the [[University of South Australia]] conducted an independent research, in line with modern [[Artificial Intelligence]] and [[Sports Biomechanics|biomechanics]] to solve the controversial issue arise from doosra. The [[University of South Australia]]'s study, founded by Prof. [[Mahinda Pathegama]], and contributed by Prof. Ozdemir Gol, Prof. J. Mazumdar, Prof. Tony Worsley and Prof. Lakmi Jain has analyzed the previous studies with close scrutiny since the techniques in their fields of expertise are employed in the course of assessment as the basis for decision-making. The findings based on this scientific study are overwhelming<ref name="anthropometric assessment" /> and [[Dave Richardson (South African cricketer)|Dave Richardson]], general manager ICC stated that "the ICC is currently reviewing the Law on throwing and the ICC regulations and the study done by Prof. Mahinda Pathegama with UniSA scientists<ref name="Special Report on the Controversial doosra" /> is a valuable source of information in this regard."<ref name="KES News">{{Cite news |date=12 August 2008 |title=ICC Acknowledgement for UniSA researchers |url=http://www.unisa.edu.au/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19970122094101/http://www.unisa.edu.au/ |url-status=live |archive-date=22 January 1997 |publisher=[[University of South Australia]] |access-date=14 August 2008 }}</ref> The team of Australian scientists including Sri Lankan-born Australian scientist, Prof. Mahinda Pathegama<ref name="anthropometric assessment" /> reporting their findings, in line with the Muralitharan test to ICC, has analyzed in-depth various issues, such as Pitfalls in image interpretation when using 2D images for 3D modeling associates compared to the modern techniques in [[Artificial Intelligence]] and [[Sports Biomechanics|biomechanics]], and [[Sports Biomechanics|Biomechanics]] assessment for doosra bowling action, etc. Pathegama at al. (2004) further reports on the Disagreement of expression on measurement accuracy in the Murali Report, with the analysis of the Motion tracking system used for the Murali Report, and discussing [[Cognitive]] aspects, Evidence of errors in Anthropometric assessment and movement tracking, Lateral inhibition in response tracking, Psycho-physiological aspect on post-assessments, Angular measurement errors, Skin marker induced errors, Geometrics-and physics-based 3D modeling and the Approach to on-field assessment, etc.

The Muralitharan Report produced by the University of Western Australia's study has considered the Richards study<ref name="Richards">{{Cite journal| doi= 10.1016/S0167-9457(99)00023-8 | author=Richards, J. | title= The measurement of human motion. A comparison of commercially available systems | journal=Human Movement Science | year= 1999 | volume=18| issue= 5 | pages=589–602| citeseerx=10.1.1.466.3706 }}</ref> done in 1999 to evaluate the error margin. [[University of South Australia]]'s study done by Prof. Mahinda Pathegama<ref name="anthropometric assessment" /> argued that the Richards study which was presented by the University of Western Australia's study has used a rigid aluminium bar that only rotated in the horizontal plane to introduce such error margin. Pathegama's report<ref name="Special Report on the Controversial doosra" /> stated that "in view of the system used in the test itself yielding considerable error even with a rigid aluminum bar (an ''accuracy level of approximately 4 degrees'' as stated in the Murali Report), it stands to reason that the error margin would be considerably larger when tracking skin markers on a spin bowler's moving upper limb by this same system". Sri Lankan born Australian medical doctor [[Siri Kannangara]] who also then served as the director of the New South Wales Institute of Sports Medicine, was also present at the forefront in analyzing Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action as part of the University of South Australia case study to determine whether Muralitharan's bowling action was genuinely legitimate or if he was chucking the ball in his bowling runup when delivering the ball in his follow-through at the international level.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Medical experts' views on Murali's action (27 January 1999) |url=https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/medical-experts-views-on-murali-s-action-27-january-1999-80341 |access-date=2024-06-09 |website=ESPNcricinfo |language=en}}</ref>

Vincent Barnes in an interview argues<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/404772.html |title=Life after the doosra |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=8 August 2014 |archive-date=15 August 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090815061104/http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/404772.html |url-status=live }}</ref> that Bruce Elliott, the UWA professor who is also the ICC biomechanist, had made an interesting discovery in his dealings with finger spinners. "He said he had found that a lot of bowlers from the subcontinent could bowl the doosra legally, but not Caucasian bowlers."

===Fourth round of testing===
On 2 February 2006, Muralitharan underwent a fourth round of biomechanical testing at the University of Western Australia. There had been criticism that the previous round of tests in July 2004 did not replicate match conditions due to a slower bowling speed in the laboratory tests. The results showed that the average elbow extension while bowling the 'doosra' delivery was 12.2 degrees, at an average of {{convert|53.75|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}. The average for his off-break was 12.9 degrees at {{convert|59.03|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}.<ref name="Murali cleared by yet more tests">{{Cite news |date=4 February 2006 |title=Murali cleared by yet more tests |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4680246.stm |work=BBC Sport Cricket |location=London |access-date=30 March 2008 |archive-date=7 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071207010208/http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4680246.stm |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Bowling with an arm brace===
In July 2004 Muralitharan was filmed in England, bowling with an arm brace on. The film was shown on Britain's [[Channel 4]] during the Test against England on {{Nowrap|22 July}} 2004.

Initially, Muralitharan bowled three balls – the off-spinner, the top-spinner and the doosra – as he would in a match. Then he bowled the same three balls with a brace that is made from steel bars, which are set into strong resin. This brace has been moulded to his right arm, is approximately 46 centimetres long and weighs just under 1 kilogram.

TV presenter [[Mark Nicholas]] who tried the brace himself, confirmed that "There is no way an arm can be bent, or flexed, when it is in this brace." All three balls reacted in the same way as when bowled without the brace. They were not bowled quite so fast because the weight of the brace restricts the speed of Muralitharan's shoulder rotation, but the spin was still there.

With the brace on, there still appeared to be a jerk in his action. When studying the film at varying speeds, it still appeared as if he straightened his arm, even though the brace makes it impossible to do so. His unique shoulder rotation and amazing wrist action seem to create the illusion that he straightens his arm.<ref name="Murali bowling with brace"/>

The off-spinner said the exercise was to convince a sceptical public rather than sway an ICC investigation into bowling actions launched after he was reported by match referee [[Chris Broad (cricketer)|Chris Broad]] for his doosra delivery in March 2004, the third time action was taken on his bowling. In an interview for August 2004 edition of [[Wisden Asia Cricket]], Muralitharan stated "I think it will prove a point to those who had said that it was physically impossible to bowl a ball that turned the other way. I proved that it was possible to bowl the doosra without bending the arm."<ref name="Film clears my bowling action:">{{Cite news |last=Paxinos |first=Stathi |date=1 August 2004 |title=Film clears my bowling action: Murali |url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/31/1091080491359.html?from=storylhs |work=The Age |location=Melbourne, Australia |access-date=12 February 2008 |archive-date=5 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105194656/http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/31/1091080491359.html?from=storylhs |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2004 at the [[R Premadasa Stadium]] in Colombo, Muralitharan voluntarily performed a series of tests with live video cameras. [[Michael Slater]] and [[Ravi Shastri]] witnessed it all unfold. Muralitharan once again showed he could bowl all his deliveries including the doosra with an arm brace that prevents any straightening of his elbow. Orthopediatrician Dr Mandeep Dillon stated that Muralitharan's unusual ability to generate extra movement both at the shoulder as well the wrist enables him to bowl the doosra without straightening the elbow.<ref name="Film Murali in armbrace with Shastri"/>

===Critics and converts===
Two vocal critics of Muralitharan's action have been former test cricketers, Australian [[Dean Jones (cricketer)|Dean Jones]] and [[Bishan Bedi]], the former Indian captain. Dean Jones later admitted<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrFK4uS6VPc | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904004226/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrFK4uS6VPc&feature=player_embedded| archive-date=2015-09-04 | url-status=dead|title=YouTube |via=YouTube |access-date=8 August 2014}}</ref> to being wrong in his assessment of Murali when he witnessed first hand Murali bowling with an arm-brace on.

[[Michael Holding]], the former West Indian fast bowler was also a critic of Muralitharan, but withdrew his criticisms under the light of the tests carried out. Holding had been quoted<ref name="Holding 100%">{{Cite news |date=8 March 2002 |title=After Bedi, Holding doubts Murali's action |url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020309/sports.htm#5 |agency=Reuters |work=The Tribune (Chandigarh, India) |access-date=15 January 2008 |archive-date=17 November 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071117034455/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020309/sports.htm#5 |url-status=live }}</ref> as being in "110% agreement" with Bedi, who likened Murali's action to a "javelin throw"<ref>{{Cite news |date=7 June 2004 |title=Murali threatens to sue Bedi |url=http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/139300.html |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=15 January 2008 |archive-date=10 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100810114605/http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/139300.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and more recently, compared to a "shot putter".<ref>{{Cite news |date=14 August 2007 |title=Murali considers legal action after Bedi jibe |url=http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/306935.html |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=15 January 2008 |archive-date=29 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071229153759/http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/306935.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Following the ICC study, as a member of the panel that conducted the study, Holding stated, "The scientific evidence is overwhelming&nbsp;... When bowlers who to the naked eye look to have pure actions are thoroughly analysed with the sophisticated technology now in place, they are likely to be shown as straightening their arm by 11 and in some cases 12 degrees. Under a strict interpretation of the Law, these players are breaking the rules. The game needs to deal with this reality and make its judgment as to how it accommodates this fact."<ref>[http://cricket-online.org/news.php?sid=4327 Cricket-Online: Murali's doosra given green light<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041113043836/http://cricket-online.org/news.php?sid=4327 |date=13 November 2004 }}</ref>

In May 2002, [[Adam Gilchrist]], speaking at a Carlton (Australian) Football Club luncheon, claimed Muralitharan's action does not comply with the laws of cricket. The Melbourne-based Age newspaper quoted Gilchrist as saying."Yeah, I think he does (chuck), and I say that because, if you read the laws of the game, there's no doubt in my mind that he and many others, throughout cricket history have."<ref>{{Cite news |date=26 April 2007 |title=Gilchrist queries Murali's action |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2009427.stm |work=BBC Sport |location=London |access-date=27 February 2008 |archive-date=19 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419085106/http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2009427.stm |url-status=live }}</ref> These comments were made before the doosra controversy, in spite of Muralitharan's action having been cleared by ICC in both 1996 and 1999. For his comment Gilchrist was reprimanded by the [[Australian Cricket Board]] (ACB) and found guilty of being in breach of ACB rules concerned with "detrimental public comment".<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/120116.html
| title = Adam Gilchrist reprimanded by ACB Code of Behaviour Commission
| author = ACB
| publisher = ESPNcricinfo
| access-date = 29 February 2008
| date = 30 May 2002
| archive-date = 17 October 2007
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071017174953/http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/120116.html
| url-status = live
}}</ref>

During the 2006 tour of New Zealand another Muralitharan critic, former New Zealand captain and cricket commentator [[Martin Crowe]], called for Muralitharan's doosra to be monitored more closely, asserting that his action seemed to deteriorate during a match.<ref>{{Cite news |date=21 December 2006 |title=Crowe calls for Murali action review |url=http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/273536.html |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=15 January 2008 |archive-date=8 July 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120708032030/http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/273536.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Earlier that year when delivering the Cowdrey lecture at Lords [[Martin Crowe]] had demanded zero tolerance instead of 15 degrees for throwing and specifically branded Muttiah Muralitharan a chucker.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Selvey |first=Mike |date=13 July 2006 |title=Crowe flies off course to tamper with the spirit of the game |url=http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,,1819091,00.html |work=Independent |location=London |access-date=1 March 2008 |archive-date=16 May 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516121238/http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,,1819091,00.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Brenkley |first=Stephen |date=16 July 2006 |title=Crowe derides ICC's bent arm of the law |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/crowe-derides-icc-s-bent-arm-of-the-law-6095295.html |work=The Independent |access-date=19 March 2024 |archive-date=19 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240319121735/https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/crowe-derides-icc-s-bent-arm-of-the-law-6095295.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In response to Crowe's criticism ICC general manager [[Dave Richardson (South African cricketer)|Dave Richardson]] stated that the scientific evidence presented by biomechanists Professor Bruce Elliot, Dr Paul Hurrion and Mr Marc Portuswith was overwhelming and clarified that "Some bowlers, even those not suspected of having flawed actions, were found likely to be straightening their arms by 11 or 12 degrees. And at the same time, some bowlers that may appear to be throwing may be hyper-extending or bowl with permanently bent elbows. Under a strict interpretation of the law, they were breaking the rules – but if we ruled out every bowler that did that then there would be no bowlers left."<ref>{{Cite news |date=13 July 2006 |title=ICC defends 'chucking' procedures |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/solpda/ukfs_sport/hi/newsid_5177000/5177750.stm |work=BBC Sport |access-date=1 March 2008 |archive-date=23 September 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080923220645/http://news.bbc.co.uk/solpda/ukfs_sport/hi/newsid_5177000/5177750.stm |url-status=dead }}</ref>