There is no doubt in the minds of cricket fans I know that Muttiah Murilitharan, Murali, is a chucker. The naked eye observes a definite straightening of the arm, and digital technology confirmed this.The Laws of cricket were subsequently changed to allow for Murali's previously illegal action. So technically the last half of his test wickets are valid.

Reasons I've heard for this are- !.Reverse racism and 2. The economic clout of India coupled with the political alliance of the sub-continental cricketing nations within the ICC.

My points? 1 Warne is the greatest slow bowler, and the most courageous of his time
2 economics has triumphed over integrity yet again
3 reverse racism I'll leave to the experts
and 4 my real point 'suspended disbelief' is surely the reality, the mood of the times.

Whether or not the action itself is dubious - and I agree that it does not fall within the generally accepted concept of a "straight arm" - the cricketing nations have agreed to let it pass. I suspect they did this for the following reasons:

1. The action is the natural result of the configuration of Murali's elbow joint, i.e. he physically cannot bowl any other way

2. The action, being used by a spinner rather than a quick, does not convey the same advantage as that which was envisaged by the law when it was (originally) framed. It was there to prevent a fast bowler from gaining an extra yard or two of pace, and was used most visibly against Ian Meckiff back in the sixties.

3. Murali is a class bowler. To ban him would undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the game, as Angus Fraser pointed out back in 2003:

"Looking at footage of bowlers from years gone by there have been some horrendous chuckers who were never called but in this age, and with television coverage being so thorough, it is possible to monitor every movement of a bowler's arm as it comes over.

Surveys have shown that the elbow of almost every fast bowler straightens during the delivery. It may only be by a couple of degrees but it is enough for a bowler to be called a chucker. This means that if a witch hunt started, and every bowler was examined, many of the game's most exciting players could be booted out. If this were to happen, cricket would lose a lot of its appeal."

If there is a political motive involved, I suspect is has more to do with Murali being a Sri Lankan-born Tamil, married to an Indian.

I fully expect we will see many more grumpy Warne-fans whingeing on about this, but it will be exclusively from i) Australians and/or ii) non-cricketers. As a (still playing) cricketer myself, I believe Murali deserves to be where he is, and I personally look forward to his thousandth.

Pericles, the leverage gained by the extra 7.5 degrees of straightening of the elbow afforded Murali is phenomenal. The impetus or cumulative work he puts on the ball compared to a Locke or Mathews is huge. Try it yourself to see.

There is alot to admire in Murali's cricket and his competitive nature, but the fact remains that the Laws were changed to accommodate his style of bowling.

True that modern analysis has shown that many a past, and a number of current bowlers have/do chuck. The naked eye rule worked well for along time, and technology would have been better used to validate and strengthen this and not to rewrite the game.

Whether I'm a grumpy, whinging Australian or not, I am a former cricketer and I for one cannot suspend my disbelief. It has been noted that Murali does not reproduce his match bowling when being tested.

As dynamic as Warne the cricketer was, I am quite happy to see his feats and records broken- just not by such a dubiously actioned bowler.