1960 August 11, 2012

No-balled out of the game

The sorry tale of South Africa fast bowler Geoff Griffin, who was no-balled out of Test cricket at Lord's in 1960... but not before he had taken a hat-trick
  shares 25

The subject of questionable bowling actions has dogged cricket since its earliest days. Initially it was roundarm, and then overarm, bowling that caused much gnashing of teeth, and then, in the last century, throwing - for which there have been three peaks: the late 19th century, the late 1950s and early 1960s, and over the last few years. But few victims of the resulting bids by the establishment to clean up the game have been as sad as Geoff Griffin, the 21-year-old South African fast bowler whose career was so publicly ended in a Test match at Lord's in 1960.

Griffin's inclusion in South Africa's squad to tour England was controversial in itself. The vexed subject of illegal actions was high on the agenda - Ian Meckiff, Graham Rorke and Charlie Griffith were all under the spotlight - and Griffin had been called in domestic matches the previous winter. Tall, blond and fast, he headed the national averages in his second season, with 35 wickets at 12.23 for Natal, and could not be overlooked. He also suffered from a physical defect, having been handicapped by an accident when a schoolboy, which left him unable to straighten his right arm fully.

No tourist had been called for throwing in England up to then, but in the South Africans' early matches Griffin's bowling attracted muttering among the media. Ian Peebles, who sat side-on in the game against Essex, wrote that he was much perturbed by what he saw and that "there was something amiss". At Lord's in May, against MCC, Griffin was no-balled for throwing (in one instance he was called for throwing and dragging) and the genie was out of the bottle. At Trent Bridge a few days later Griffin was again called.

In the light of this, most newspaper correspondents called for a tough line to be taken and expected Griffin to be left out of the Tests. That he was not, given the obvious backing umpires had received from the authorities to call Griffin, was to the shame of the South African management.

The affable Griffin retreated to the internationally famous Alf Gover Indoor School in south-west London, where a three-day coaching session appeared to have ironed out the problem. Although Gover did his best, he later admitted that the arm was unquestionably bent.

Griffin played in the first Test at Edgbaston, where there were again mumblings, but the umpires did not call him. He cut down his speed, but his penetration went with it. The only time he really opened up, late on the first day, the old problems appeared to return. At Southampton a week later, he was once again no-balled. It was to general surprise that he was named in the XI for the Lord's Test.

What followed was a match of mixed fortunes for Griffin. On the plus side, he became the first South African to take a hat-trick in a Test. But that was scant consolation for the events that ended his Test career.

In the third over of England's innings Griffin was no-balled by Frank Lee, who was standing at square leg, and after a break for rain, he was called again by Lee. Onlookers commented that while Griffin's action was suspect, there was no discernible difference between any of the deliveries. In all, Griffin was no-balled five times on the opening day.

On the Friday (the second day) Griffin didn't bowl until the new ball was taken after lunch. He managed four deliveries before he was again no-balled in successive balls by Lee. The next delivery was fine according to Lee, but the hapless Griffin was called for dragging by Syd Buller at the bowler's end.

In between these battles with the umpires, Griffin bowled well, giving the batsmen a real going-over. In the dying overs, Mike Smith chased a wide one from Griffin and was caught behind by John Waite for 99; the first ball of Griffin's next over bowled Peter Walker, and when Fred Trueman was bowled heaving, Griffin had his hat-trick, the first in a Test at Lord's.

His euphoria was short-lived. South Africa were twice bowled out cheaply, and by 2.25pm on Monday (the fourth day) had lost by an innings. But with the Queen due to visit Lord's at tea, both sides agreed to play a 20-over exhibition match. Griffin was brought on to bowl at the Pavilion End - where Lee was standing - but this time he fell foul of Buller. Buller watched the first ball from square leg, then ambled across to point, and, satisfied with what he had seen, called Griffin's next three half-paced deliveries as no-balls. He allowed the next - overarm - delivery as fair before again calling him for throwing.

Jackie McGlew, South Africa's captain, consulted with Buller. "What's going on?" McGlew asked. "He's obviously not throwing... he's bowling slowly. Is he going to be allowed to finish the over?" Buller replied: "We are playing to the Laws, which I must abide by." An exasperated McGlew asked how "we can finish the over if this sort of thing goes on", to which Buller answered: "There's only one way and that's for him to bowl underarm."

A disconsolate Griffin switched to underarm - and was promptly and pettily no-balled by Lee for not notifying him of his change of action. "We didn't take the warning seriously," Griffin said. "It sounded so preposterous to use an exhibition match to do the dirty on me." That was his final act as an international player.

According to Griffin, after the match Don Bradman came into the South Africans' dressing room to sympathise, and told Griffin that Buller was acting under orders. Bradman claimed to have overheard Gubby Allen, the MCC president and a leading campaigner against chucking, instructing Buller to call Griffin out of the game.

The overwhelming reaction was one of sympathy for Griffin but anger that his own management had exposed him on such a public stage as a Lord's Test to what was seen as inevitable, and also that the selectors had picked him in the first place. The response from South Africa was to blame the English media for stirring up the storm. Griffin was not the only victim. Buller, who had done as asked, was controversially dumped for the rest of the series by the MCC, to the fury of the press.

Perhaps the most damming evidence came from Gover. He explained that he had remedied the problem ahead of the first Test, but that Griffin's "consequent loss of pace at Birmingham made him ineffective… at Lord's he put all he could into his bowling and slipped out of the groove into which he had been put".

Griffin was contacted by a lawyer who offered to take the matter to court, free of charge. "You'll win hands down and end up a wealthy young man," he said. But Griffin declined. "I loved cricket too much to sully the great game further."

Two days after the Lord's Test came the inevitable announcement that Griffin would not bowl again on the tour "for reasons obvious to all" but would remain with the squad as a batsman. He made one or two useful contributions from the No. 9 spot and was widely praised for what the Cricketer described as "the superb manner in which he has taken this misfortune". His behaviour was always polite and measured.

There was a brief glimmer of hope when, back at Lord's during the tourists' match against Middlesex, he bowled in the nets in front of Bradman and McGlew, wearing a plastic arm split designed by a surgeon, but nothing came of it.

In 2006, shortly before he died, Griffin said: "I was the victim of a thoroughly distasteful 'chucking' conspiracy. I was the fall guy. I attribute the blame to the South African cricket authorities and MCC, who should never have allowed things to develop as they did."

Griffin returned home and moved from Natal to Rhodesia, but within two years - and still only 23 years old - his career ended when he was repeatedly no-balled against North-Eastern Transvaal at Salisbury.

Former Rhodesia opener Ray Gripper, who played in that match, told me: "I must say I also thought that Geoff threw but he had got away with it for some time, and let me say he really could bowl/throw at pace. However, I became thoroughly confused in the game in question when Umpire Fletcher called Geoff for throwing.

"Geoff left the field and returned a couple of overs later wearing a long-sleeved sweater and bowled with as much pace as he had before. Fletcher once again called him and Geoff took off his sweater to show Fletcher that he was wearing a metal brace on his arm and asked how he could throw with that brace on.

"I saw it and agreed that there was no way he could bend and straighten his arm while wearing the brace, and yet he had bowled with just the same pace as he had before putting on the brace. So although I had thought Geoff's action suspect, I had no answer as to how he could bowl with the same pace whilst wearing a metal brace. Therefore the question remains as to whether he really did throw or not."

What happened next?

  • The no-nonsense approach to "chuckers" continued and climaxed with the no-balling out of Test cricket of Ian Meckiff, one of the most notorious culprits, in the first Test of the 1963-64 series between Australia and South Africa.
  • Griffin never played first-class again after being no-balled in Salisbury. His career was over at the age of 23

Is there an incident from the past you would like to know more about? Email us with your comments and suggestions.

Martin Williamson is executive editor of ESPNcricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • SouthPaw on August 13, 2012, 6:22 GMT

    "Bradman ... overheard Gubby Allen, the MCC president ... instructing Buller to call Griffin out of the game". So what's new? It is happening again, Hugh Morris has managed to get another South African, Pietersen out of the game!

  • on August 12, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    they only brought in the 17 degree allowance to keep Sri Lanka happy with Murali

  • on August 12, 2012, 11:44 GMT

    am sure had SA toured AUS, aussies would've gone on to tackle him 'on the fileld'. But english start complaining the moment someone has the better of them

  • Headbandenator on August 12, 2012, 5:57 GMT

    The trouble with the 17 degrees "allowed" today is that younger players are not discouraged from throwing at a younger age.By the time they make it to first class level it may be too late to change anything. During a local game, I actually heard a teenager shouting at an umpire, "I've got 17 degrees and you have to refer me. You can't no-ball me." Wrong on so many levels.

  • Peterincanada on August 11, 2012, 21:25 GMT

    While I agree with those who claim that bowling actions have been allowed to deteriorate, it is certainly better than the situation that prevailed in the 1960's. There is no doubt in my mind that cowardly administrators who did not want to be blamed, bullied umpires into doing their dirty work for them. The no-balls were called at random even when the bowler wasn't throwing and allowing certain balls that were thrown. It was too haphazzard not to have been pre-judged. It was undoubtedly political. Charlie Griffith's action was as bad or worse than Meckiff or Griffin but he got away with it. The English and Oz administrators were in love with the Windies at that time so Charlie escaped while the others didn't.

  • mikefm on August 11, 2012, 20:34 GMT

    Griffin could not straighten his arm due to an old injury. With today's definitions of a throw, as he did not straighten the arm beyond 17 degrees, his action would have been allowed. He was no more a chucker than several of today's players.

  • on August 11, 2012, 19:42 GMT

    Thanks David Baker - Forune suggests that the MCC put pressure on the umpires - particularly Frank Lee - during the Lord's Test. He notes that before lunch on the second day, Lee showed hardly any interest in Griffin or his action, whereas after the interval, Lee watched Griffin like a hawk, no-balling him for throwing. Fortune suggests that the umpires had more than R&R during the lunch break and were pressurised by English cricket authorities to no-ball Griffin. Buller was probably given similar instruction, but I don't think stood at square leg to Griffin's bowling until the Exhibition match.

    Arlott notes that Buller stood in the tourists' opening first-class match against Worcestershire, and considers it odd that Griffin was not selected to play in that match. He thinks that SA would normally have wished to play their likely test team in that match but didn't want to expose Griffin to Buller. Finally, Buller was dropped from the Test umpires' roster for the season after Lords

  • thalalara on August 11, 2012, 19:24 GMT

    I feel that, with the current rules of the game favoring the batsmen, fast bowlers either should be allowed to bowl as many bouncers they wish to in an over or allowed to chuck a couple of balls to make the game interesting.... especially in a docile wickets....

  • AdrianVanDenStael on August 11, 2012, 19:17 GMT

    That's a great quotation: "I loved cricket too much to sully the great game further." Can think of a few cricket personalities who should take that to heart at the moment.

  • Dannymania on August 11, 2012, 16:41 GMT

    @steve19191..I am a pakistani and i do agree with u that strictly speaking,ajmal throws.but if we're just saying names about who threw,well,we should mention James Kirtley(I really don't know how he got away with it!!),also Brett lee,Cameron Cuffy,Muttiah Muralidaran(He was the biggest thrower).These are just a few names.In Ajmal's case,All i can say is that if Murali was allowed to bowl,ajmal should be allowed too as he is a 'lesser' of a chucker than murali.Also,if Akhtar was a thrower(I personally think he was),then James Kirtley was definitely a thrower and then Brett Lee's action was also not completely legal.ANYWAYS,I see that my point here is clear,now here's my point of view.I think that the current rules are the best as they are for bowlers who're suspected for 'chucking',and we should all be at peace with any bowler who clears it.Rules are rules people,if the rules clear them who're we to point out the 'obvious'?!

  • SouthPaw on August 13, 2012, 6:22 GMT

    "Bradman ... overheard Gubby Allen, the MCC president ... instructing Buller to call Griffin out of the game". So what's new? It is happening again, Hugh Morris has managed to get another South African, Pietersen out of the game!

  • on August 12, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    they only brought in the 17 degree allowance to keep Sri Lanka happy with Murali

  • on August 12, 2012, 11:44 GMT

    am sure had SA toured AUS, aussies would've gone on to tackle him 'on the fileld'. But english start complaining the moment someone has the better of them

  • Headbandenator on August 12, 2012, 5:57 GMT

    The trouble with the 17 degrees "allowed" today is that younger players are not discouraged from throwing at a younger age.By the time they make it to first class level it may be too late to change anything. During a local game, I actually heard a teenager shouting at an umpire, "I've got 17 degrees and you have to refer me. You can't no-ball me." Wrong on so many levels.

  • Peterincanada on August 11, 2012, 21:25 GMT

    While I agree with those who claim that bowling actions have been allowed to deteriorate, it is certainly better than the situation that prevailed in the 1960's. There is no doubt in my mind that cowardly administrators who did not want to be blamed, bullied umpires into doing their dirty work for them. The no-balls were called at random even when the bowler wasn't throwing and allowing certain balls that were thrown. It was too haphazzard not to have been pre-judged. It was undoubtedly political. Charlie Griffith's action was as bad or worse than Meckiff or Griffin but he got away with it. The English and Oz administrators were in love with the Windies at that time so Charlie escaped while the others didn't.

  • mikefm on August 11, 2012, 20:34 GMT

    Griffin could not straighten his arm due to an old injury. With today's definitions of a throw, as he did not straighten the arm beyond 17 degrees, his action would have been allowed. He was no more a chucker than several of today's players.

  • on August 11, 2012, 19:42 GMT

    Thanks David Baker - Forune suggests that the MCC put pressure on the umpires - particularly Frank Lee - during the Lord's Test. He notes that before lunch on the second day, Lee showed hardly any interest in Griffin or his action, whereas after the interval, Lee watched Griffin like a hawk, no-balling him for throwing. Fortune suggests that the umpires had more than R&R during the lunch break and were pressurised by English cricket authorities to no-ball Griffin. Buller was probably given similar instruction, but I don't think stood at square leg to Griffin's bowling until the Exhibition match.

    Arlott notes that Buller stood in the tourists' opening first-class match against Worcestershire, and considers it odd that Griffin was not selected to play in that match. He thinks that SA would normally have wished to play their likely test team in that match but didn't want to expose Griffin to Buller. Finally, Buller was dropped from the Test umpires' roster for the season after Lords

  • thalalara on August 11, 2012, 19:24 GMT

    I feel that, with the current rules of the game favoring the batsmen, fast bowlers either should be allowed to bowl as many bouncers they wish to in an over or allowed to chuck a couple of balls to make the game interesting.... especially in a docile wickets....

  • AdrianVanDenStael on August 11, 2012, 19:17 GMT

    That's a great quotation: "I loved cricket too much to sully the great game further." Can think of a few cricket personalities who should take that to heart at the moment.

  • Dannymania on August 11, 2012, 16:41 GMT

    @steve19191..I am a pakistani and i do agree with u that strictly speaking,ajmal throws.but if we're just saying names about who threw,well,we should mention James Kirtley(I really don't know how he got away with it!!),also Brett lee,Cameron Cuffy,Muttiah Muralidaran(He was the biggest thrower).These are just a few names.In Ajmal's case,All i can say is that if Murali was allowed to bowl,ajmal should be allowed too as he is a 'lesser' of a chucker than murali.Also,if Akhtar was a thrower(I personally think he was),then James Kirtley was definitely a thrower and then Brett Lee's action was also not completely legal.ANYWAYS,I see that my point here is clear,now here's my point of view.I think that the current rules are the best as they are for bowlers who're suspected for 'chucking',and we should all be at peace with any bowler who clears it.Rules are rules people,if the rules clear them who're we to point out the 'obvious'?!

  • on August 11, 2012, 16:20 GMT

    I saw Geoff Griffin play. He will always remain a hero to me. Today the likes of Murali were allowed to carry on Griffin lived in the wrong era.

  • on August 11, 2012, 15:39 GMT

    @dhruvans In the 60s, there was no front foot no ball rule. The back foot had to be behind the popping crease. Rather tragic. Remember following these matches through Sports and Pastime, a magazine that used to be published by The Hindu group. If the standards adhered to then were applied now, people like Ajmal, possibly Bhajji and a few others would definitely be out of Cricket.

  • Dubious on August 11, 2012, 15:21 GMT

    dhruvans, they had the back foot no ball back then, not the front foot no ball.

  • on August 11, 2012, 14:58 GMT

    @dhruvans - in those days you didn't get no-balled for where your front foot came down, only the back. The law has changed since then.

  • on August 11, 2012, 14:48 GMT

    Dhuvrans. You're probably too young to remember it, but back then it was the back foot that had to be behind the bowling crease (which is how it gets its name). The front foot rule came in later

    Marcio - Geoff Cope (now sadly nearly totally blind) - the Yorkshier offspinner was nearly taken out of the game 30-35 years ago so it isn't just an Asian spinners problem. Lot's of doubts if I remember rightly about johnny Gleeson when he first came through. Griffin probably had a similar joint problem to Murali - o tempora, o mores

  • musa441 on August 11, 2012, 14:30 GMT

    @steve19191 ur comment is so biased here either accept griffin chucked or dont show sympathy!! or if u have sympathy to griffin then u must show same to ajmal try to swallow that hes the best spinnner inthe world today if he is a chucker then murli is bigger chucker!!! so if u are going to calll both chuckers then shame on u becoz u are only looking on the negative side u arent seeing the ppositive side of it now tell me is there any other bowler in the world who can bowl like ajmal and murli with chucking actions with same accuracy and same dangerous doosra???? if there is then they shud also be playign international cricket. the truth is that ajmal and murli are spinners who are unique int he world but the englishmen dont seem to swallow this fact becoz they dont have anyone like them!! try not to be biased!! if ICC has cleared ajmal then who are u to say he chucks!!

  • steve19191 on August 11, 2012, 12:58 GMT

    seems a shame that this chap got bullied out of the game while these days Ajmal can throw as many as he likes and not get called

  • on August 11, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    @Huw Pritchard - I didn't read the SA media at the time because it was before my time.

    My father was over in the UK at the time and in SA before that. From what I gathered from him SA was very divided on Griffin.

    Our sport is very provincial in SA which means that his action would have been fine in Natal but not so fine elsewhere.

    He was certainly stitched up by both the SA authorities and the MCC. The idea of anyone telling an umpire what to do (mid game) worries me.

    Sad, especially considering he was an amateur and giving up his own time

  • dhruvans on August 11, 2012, 12:06 GMT

    He is bowling a no-ball in the first picture (for overstepping)

  • on August 11, 2012, 9:59 GMT

    Read John Arlott's Cricket Journal for that year, and Charles Fortune's Cricket Overthrown for more background - from diverse viewpoints. I'd be interested in knowing more about what the SA press attitude to this was at the time.

  • Marcio on August 11, 2012, 7:44 GMT

    @REH223, anyone who has followed cricket for more than a couple of decades can easily see how bowling actions have deteriorated drastically in recent years, and spin bolwers are the worst. What is notable is that none of them come from Australia or England. Shane Warne, Graham Swann, Nathan Lyon, Patel: all straight as a line. It is the very cricketing nations that you despise as "jealous" which set the standard in this area. Bending the arm and snapping it back to bowl a doosra is not "innovation": it is cheating. I watched the Bangladesh Premier League last season. Great to see the success of the contest. But some of the bowling actions! Some of these bowlers would not make it past grade cricket in Australia and England. They would simple be suspended till they learned how to bowl with their arm straight. There are standards, and there are laws, and they are enforced.

  • REH223 on August 11, 2012, 6:07 GMT

    The english and australian media always has the history of being jealous from top class fast bowlers. One example is of the 1990 tour of pak to eng. Blaming the two W's for ball tampering.......

  • Cricmaniac_Anurag on August 11, 2012, 5:59 GMT

    This is sad .. I want to know what Griffin pursued after retiring at 23

  • Josh1942 on August 11, 2012, 5:31 GMT

    I played against Griffin while at school and I thought he chucked but that anecdote about the metal bracket has made me think again. We protested to the umpires but he was allowed to continue bowling. On a fast pitch he was virtually unplayable at full speed.

  • Nutcutlet on August 11, 2012, 5:21 GMT

    The sporting tragedy of the late Geoff Griffin has exercised my mind long before the appearance of this article. In today's more tolerant world (or, when it comes to attempting to enforce the Laws of the Game, do I mean lax?) where umpires are villified for upholding the chucking Laws - and pressure & clamour are subsequently exerted to allow - what was the last ruling? - 17 degrees of flexion at the elbow, it's very difficult for us now to realise that, in those far-off days, what looked like throwing WAS throwing. These days the number of non-straight/ slightly bent bowling arms about AT ALL LEVELS of the Game has become so commonplace, it doesn't merit any comment, but older watchers, who grew up in a world where things were different, watch in tight-lipped silence. I wonder if WIndian Charlie Griffith, who was terrifyingly fast - especially when he threw in (litererally threw in) his bouncer would get away with it? No guesses for the answer. Poor Geoff - you were an innocent.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Nutcutlet on August 11, 2012, 5:21 GMT

    The sporting tragedy of the late Geoff Griffin has exercised my mind long before the appearance of this article. In today's more tolerant world (or, when it comes to attempting to enforce the Laws of the Game, do I mean lax?) where umpires are villified for upholding the chucking Laws - and pressure & clamour are subsequently exerted to allow - what was the last ruling? - 17 degrees of flexion at the elbow, it's very difficult for us now to realise that, in those far-off days, what looked like throwing WAS throwing. These days the number of non-straight/ slightly bent bowling arms about AT ALL LEVELS of the Game has become so commonplace, it doesn't merit any comment, but older watchers, who grew up in a world where things were different, watch in tight-lipped silence. I wonder if WIndian Charlie Griffith, who was terrifyingly fast - especially when he threw in (litererally threw in) his bouncer would get away with it? No guesses for the answer. Poor Geoff - you were an innocent.

  • Josh1942 on August 11, 2012, 5:31 GMT

    I played against Griffin while at school and I thought he chucked but that anecdote about the metal bracket has made me think again. We protested to the umpires but he was allowed to continue bowling. On a fast pitch he was virtually unplayable at full speed.

  • Cricmaniac_Anurag on August 11, 2012, 5:59 GMT

    This is sad .. I want to know what Griffin pursued after retiring at 23

  • REH223 on August 11, 2012, 6:07 GMT

    The english and australian media always has the history of being jealous from top class fast bowlers. One example is of the 1990 tour of pak to eng. Blaming the two W's for ball tampering.......

  • Marcio on August 11, 2012, 7:44 GMT

    @REH223, anyone who has followed cricket for more than a couple of decades can easily see how bowling actions have deteriorated drastically in recent years, and spin bolwers are the worst. What is notable is that none of them come from Australia or England. Shane Warne, Graham Swann, Nathan Lyon, Patel: all straight as a line. It is the very cricketing nations that you despise as "jealous" which set the standard in this area. Bending the arm and snapping it back to bowl a doosra is not "innovation": it is cheating. I watched the Bangladesh Premier League last season. Great to see the success of the contest. But some of the bowling actions! Some of these bowlers would not make it past grade cricket in Australia and England. They would simple be suspended till they learned how to bowl with their arm straight. There are standards, and there are laws, and they are enforced.

  • on August 11, 2012, 9:59 GMT

    Read John Arlott's Cricket Journal for that year, and Charles Fortune's Cricket Overthrown for more background - from diverse viewpoints. I'd be interested in knowing more about what the SA press attitude to this was at the time.

  • dhruvans on August 11, 2012, 12:06 GMT

    He is bowling a no-ball in the first picture (for overstepping)

  • on August 11, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    @Huw Pritchard - I didn't read the SA media at the time because it was before my time.

    My father was over in the UK at the time and in SA before that. From what I gathered from him SA was very divided on Griffin.

    Our sport is very provincial in SA which means that his action would have been fine in Natal but not so fine elsewhere.

    He was certainly stitched up by both the SA authorities and the MCC. The idea of anyone telling an umpire what to do (mid game) worries me.

    Sad, especially considering he was an amateur and giving up his own time

  • steve19191 on August 11, 2012, 12:58 GMT

    seems a shame that this chap got bullied out of the game while these days Ajmal can throw as many as he likes and not get called

  • musa441 on August 11, 2012, 14:30 GMT

    @steve19191 ur comment is so biased here either accept griffin chucked or dont show sympathy!! or if u have sympathy to griffin then u must show same to ajmal try to swallow that hes the best spinnner inthe world today if he is a chucker then murli is bigger chucker!!! so if u are going to calll both chuckers then shame on u becoz u are only looking on the negative side u arent seeing the ppositive side of it now tell me is there any other bowler in the world who can bowl like ajmal and murli with chucking actions with same accuracy and same dangerous doosra???? if there is then they shud also be playign international cricket. the truth is that ajmal and murli are spinners who are unique int he world but the englishmen dont seem to swallow this fact becoz they dont have anyone like them!! try not to be biased!! if ICC has cleared ajmal then who are u to say he chucks!!