Pakistan news August 12, 2014

Ajmal move reveals ICC's firm hand

The scrutiny over Saeed Ajmal is one of the signs that the ICC is taking greater control in the process of identifying suspect bowling actions by backing match officials and bringing uniformity in testing
25

If there was any doubt about the seriousness of the ICC's renewed vigour in pursuing bowlers with illegal actions, it should have dissipated by now. For umpires to call Shane Shillingford, Kane Williamson and Sachithra Senanayake, as they have done in recent months, is one thing.

Saeed Ajmal? That shows a different degree of vigour altogether. Ajmal is, alongside Rangana Herath, the world's best spinner. He is among the best bowlers in the world, the one man because of whom Pakistan remain a threat. Nobody has taken more international wickets since the start of 2011; nobody is really even close to his 323-wicket haul.

He is the biggest fish. It is something the ICC has been working towards. In June this year, at an ICC meeting, the cricket committee expressed concerns about the identifying, reporting and testing of suspect actions.

Primarily, the ICC is unhappy with the biomechanics lab at the University of Western Australia in Perth, where bowlers with suspect actions have usually been sent for testing and correction. The ICC is not convinced that the lab's testing procedures are rigorous enough, at least to the standards they want. They are unhappy that not enough of the bowlers reported and then tested in recent years have been found to possess suspect actions.

So now they are taking greater control over the process, accrediting a number of other labs around the world where they can implement uniformity to the testing, to the standards they want. Not least of the issues to keep an eye on with this case will be where Ajmal goes for testing.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the actions of Williamson and Senanayake were tested and confirmed to be illegal at a newly accredited facility, at the Cardiff Metropolitan University's School of Sport in Wales (Shillingford, and teammate Marlon Samuels, it is only fair to point out, were banned from bowling after tests in Perth).

But somebody has to report them first and had umpires not been emboldened to do so, none of this would be happening. At that ICC meeting, the committee recommended changes to specifically "encourage umpires and referees" to identify suspect actions.

That was followed by the words of the ICC's general manager, cricket, Geoff Allardice at the annual general meeting at the end of June. "There's enough bowlers with suspect actions that should be being scrutinized, that probably haven't been."

The message is clear. So is the bigger picture in which Ajmal finds himself. It is the details, however, that are not so straightforward. Ajmal was reported in 2009 as well, and was cleared to bowl again soon after. The ICC loves to insist no bowler is ever permanently cleared, but to many constituencies, Ajmal's action has never been quite right.

The accompanying conjecture is not as bad as the hounding of Muttiah Muralitharan, but it has been snide. Michael Vaughan's recent tweeting of a grainy photograph of Ajmal in delivery is a classic example of the kind of mischief some have sought.

Ajmal has not helped, as when, back in 2012, he seemed to suggest the ICC had granted his action a special allowance. They had done no such thing. Ajmal was simply unable to articulate clearly in English vital technical information.

That little episode did shed a light, however, on how little people understand of suspect actions. A bent elbow during delivery is not the vital measure, for example: it is to the degree that the elbow straightens when the ball is released that is. That should not exceed 15 degrees and in the 2009 tests that Ajmal spoke of, he did not.

To the naked eye his action over the last five years has not looked particularly changed. Was it different in Galle? Did his action become more ragged because of how much he bowled? He always bears a heavy burden though (he has bowled more international overs than anyone since 2011). It could just be that the environment is changing around him.

Unusually, and ominously for him, it may not be just Ajmal's doosra that is under scrutiny. The ICC has said only that a "number of deliveries" raised concerns. Ajmal is unique in one respect: the 2009 tests found that his elbow straightened fractionally more (but within legal limits) for his off-break and quicker ball than for the doosra.

The impact on Ajmal will be difficult to gauge. He likes to play the free, easy and unconcerned simpleton but he is infinitely more complex. He might take heart from having been cleared once before. He might let it weigh him down. Either would be a pretty normal reaction to a difficult situation.

Pakistan will not even want to imagine a world without Ajmal. Over the last 15 years they have seen the careers of so many of their leading bowlers curtailed that if Ajmal does not clear those tests, they might be compelled to acknowledge that the posting itself is cursed.

This article was first published in The National.

Osman Samiuddin is a sportswriter at the National. @sprtnationaluae

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on August 13, 2014, 21:30 GMT

    Fair enough. Rules are Rules and Ajmal needs to prove he is not chucking. If he is, Pakistan should be able to replace him in ODIs and T20s. However, Pakistan would have to rely on fast bowling in tests again.

  • on August 13, 2014, 13:39 GMT

    @Khurram S Chaudhry on (August 13, 2014, 6:28 GMT);

    Your idea of superimposing the actual picture, with a template from the earlier testing, will be of some use if BEND was the issue; not for FLEX, which is the concern here. When the issue cropped up years ago, it was triggered by the BEND! How the issue got shifted to flex itself is a fascinating story, for another day.

    Even if you compare the 'MOVING video' of he actual , with the template video from the testing, you can still get only a 2D view, unlike a 3D view, which the testing lab has while testing. The recordings are only supplementary documents, and not the major tool for judgement. Any 2D view also get heavily affected by the angle of the shot. In testing lab, they shoot from a multitude of angles, before they arrive at the judgement. I think, with the limited time and equipment at the disposal of the umpires when a game is on, we may not have a better option than the current processes being followed by ICC.

  • on August 13, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    @landl47 on (August 13, 2014, 11:47 GMT)

    Yes, I picked up the idea from the American baseball, which I played a bit during my student days there in the fifties. I agree, that I was trying to tilt the balance a bit more in favor of the bowlers. I also agree that the game will finish a bit faster than the meandering 5 days.

    BUT, it is not as bad (or as short) as baseball, for many reasons. One: The ball has to pitch the ground before it reaches the batsmen; unlike in baseball. The pace of the ball reduces after pitching and the batsmen will have more time to gauge the ball's movement & speed. Two: The cricket bat's shape (as opposed to the baseball bat) gives the batsman, better chance to connect, and can play ALL the cricketing shots, he had been playing for years.

    Almost all the other unique features of cricket will remain intact... such as the cat & mouse games good cricket captains play with field placements, building partnerships, et al.

    Anyway,it was just an idea :-)

  • TheBigBoodha on August 13, 2014, 12:18 GMT

    Don't throw! Simple. All this hullabaloo about fair/not fair! This is cricket, not baseball. Innovation has to be within the rules of the game. If you want to throw it, take up boomerang throwing. It isn't innovation to bowl half way down the pitch, and it isn't innovation to throw the ball at the batsman. Work within the rules. That's what true intonation and creativity requires. All games, and all creative endeavours have boundaries. cricket is no different.

  • landl47 on August 13, 2014, 11:47 GMT

    @Jose Puliampatta: I live in the USA. If the rule change you suggested was put in place, what would happen is that bowlers would stand at the crease, wind up and throw the ball, just as baseball pitchers do. The run-up would no longer be necessary. Baseball pitchers are way more accurate than bowlers in cricket and throw the ball, on average, about 10mph faster- it's a poor pitcher these days who can't throw over 90mph and most are closer to the mid-90s. They swing the ball both ways and make it dip quickly and late.

    In a baseball game of about 250 pitches (125 per side), an average score would be something like 8 runs between the two sides, as compared to maybe 320 runs in a 240-ball T20 game. Baseball is very pitcher-dominated. Even with the bigger bat, my guess would be that runs would shrink to about 10% of what they are now.

    Is that really what you want to see in cricket? It's not what I want.

  • Welay-White-Water on August 13, 2014, 10:05 GMT

    Isn't there any ICC authorised executive power to relax rules and free the game?

  • on August 13, 2014, 9:23 GMT

    Just a thought. Why not we completely abolish the chucking rule. As long the bowlers don't overstep, and as long as the ball reaches the batsman, one bounce -- including allowing yorkers--, it should be alright. Just keep the rules for no-balls, wides, and beamers. that's enough.The game had heavily been tilted in the batsmen's favour; this will bring some semblance of balance between bat & ball.

    @Cricket_theBestGame on (August 13, 2014, 2:20 GMT): Yes, I share your view on the 180 degree. But, am willing to go beyond your suggestion.

  • Smithie on August 13, 2014, 9:12 GMT

    @jmcilhinney - sleeveless pullovers, rashies and factor 50 should be adequate solutions to the limited instances you raise. It's the potential of umpires sanction which may discourage the " slipping in " of a couple when things get tight. This variation at will is a key component of what is objectionable.

  • on August 13, 2014, 7:36 GMT

    Once again more freedom to the batsmen and less freedom for the bolwers. Cricket has lately become the game for the batsmen let it be IPL, CPL, CL. Bowlers cant step over the crease, bowlers cant bowl wide in order to get the batsmen out and then the bowlers cant bend their arms beyond the desired level. This is truly unfair fow the bowlers.

  • on August 13, 2014, 7:18 GMT

    Ajmal at the age of 37, a maximum of one season to go. Why would anyone want him out at this stage?

  • on August 13, 2014, 21:30 GMT

    Fair enough. Rules are Rules and Ajmal needs to prove he is not chucking. If he is, Pakistan should be able to replace him in ODIs and T20s. However, Pakistan would have to rely on fast bowling in tests again.

  • on August 13, 2014, 13:39 GMT

    @Khurram S Chaudhry on (August 13, 2014, 6:28 GMT);

    Your idea of superimposing the actual picture, with a template from the earlier testing, will be of some use if BEND was the issue; not for FLEX, which is the concern here. When the issue cropped up years ago, it was triggered by the BEND! How the issue got shifted to flex itself is a fascinating story, for another day.

    Even if you compare the 'MOVING video' of he actual , with the template video from the testing, you can still get only a 2D view, unlike a 3D view, which the testing lab has while testing. The recordings are only supplementary documents, and not the major tool for judgement. Any 2D view also get heavily affected by the angle of the shot. In testing lab, they shoot from a multitude of angles, before they arrive at the judgement. I think, with the limited time and equipment at the disposal of the umpires when a game is on, we may not have a better option than the current processes being followed by ICC.

  • on August 13, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    @landl47 on (August 13, 2014, 11:47 GMT)

    Yes, I picked up the idea from the American baseball, which I played a bit during my student days there in the fifties. I agree, that I was trying to tilt the balance a bit more in favor of the bowlers. I also agree that the game will finish a bit faster than the meandering 5 days.

    BUT, it is not as bad (or as short) as baseball, for many reasons. One: The ball has to pitch the ground before it reaches the batsmen; unlike in baseball. The pace of the ball reduces after pitching and the batsmen will have more time to gauge the ball's movement & speed. Two: The cricket bat's shape (as opposed to the baseball bat) gives the batsman, better chance to connect, and can play ALL the cricketing shots, he had been playing for years.

    Almost all the other unique features of cricket will remain intact... such as the cat & mouse games good cricket captains play with field placements, building partnerships, et al.

    Anyway,it was just an idea :-)

  • TheBigBoodha on August 13, 2014, 12:18 GMT

    Don't throw! Simple. All this hullabaloo about fair/not fair! This is cricket, not baseball. Innovation has to be within the rules of the game. If you want to throw it, take up boomerang throwing. It isn't innovation to bowl half way down the pitch, and it isn't innovation to throw the ball at the batsman. Work within the rules. That's what true intonation and creativity requires. All games, and all creative endeavours have boundaries. cricket is no different.

  • landl47 on August 13, 2014, 11:47 GMT

    @Jose Puliampatta: I live in the USA. If the rule change you suggested was put in place, what would happen is that bowlers would stand at the crease, wind up and throw the ball, just as baseball pitchers do. The run-up would no longer be necessary. Baseball pitchers are way more accurate than bowlers in cricket and throw the ball, on average, about 10mph faster- it's a poor pitcher these days who can't throw over 90mph and most are closer to the mid-90s. They swing the ball both ways and make it dip quickly and late.

    In a baseball game of about 250 pitches (125 per side), an average score would be something like 8 runs between the two sides, as compared to maybe 320 runs in a 240-ball T20 game. Baseball is very pitcher-dominated. Even with the bigger bat, my guess would be that runs would shrink to about 10% of what they are now.

    Is that really what you want to see in cricket? It's not what I want.

  • Welay-White-Water on August 13, 2014, 10:05 GMT

    Isn't there any ICC authorised executive power to relax rules and free the game?

  • on August 13, 2014, 9:23 GMT

    Just a thought. Why not we completely abolish the chucking rule. As long the bowlers don't overstep, and as long as the ball reaches the batsman, one bounce -- including allowing yorkers--, it should be alright. Just keep the rules for no-balls, wides, and beamers. that's enough.The game had heavily been tilted in the batsmen's favour; this will bring some semblance of balance between bat & ball.

    @Cricket_theBestGame on (August 13, 2014, 2:20 GMT): Yes, I share your view on the 180 degree. But, am willing to go beyond your suggestion.

  • Smithie on August 13, 2014, 9:12 GMT

    @jmcilhinney - sleeveless pullovers, rashies and factor 50 should be adequate solutions to the limited instances you raise. It's the potential of umpires sanction which may discourage the " slipping in " of a couple when things get tight. This variation at will is a key component of what is objectionable.

  • on August 13, 2014, 7:36 GMT

    Once again more freedom to the batsmen and less freedom for the bolwers. Cricket has lately become the game for the batsmen let it be IPL, CPL, CL. Bowlers cant step over the crease, bowlers cant bowl wide in order to get the batsmen out and then the bowlers cant bend their arms beyond the desired level. This is truly unfair fow the bowlers.

  • on August 13, 2014, 7:18 GMT

    Ajmal at the age of 37, a maximum of one season to go. Why would anyone want him out at this stage?

  • on August 13, 2014, 6:28 GMT

    @Posted by Jose Puliampatta on (August 13, 2014, 1:00 GMT): Thanks for information. It was reported on cric info that during England tour to UAE, umpires did check Ajmal's match video with lab video to compare if he is bowling with same action or not. Anyway, if some umpires can do it then it can be made a part of process and all umpires can then check it anytime they want. it will be much quicker than sending bowler back to test lab. and even ICC can improve the system to super impose 2 videos and compare.

  • anver777 on August 13, 2014, 4:11 GMT

    Another attacking spinner under observation after playing for so many matches for so many years.... Who is NEXT ????

  • Cricket_theBestGame on August 13, 2014, 2:20 GMT

    i think rule of chucking should be redefined. bowlers can bend their elbows to 180 degrees if they want. the rule should be as long as a bowler bowls round arm he can bend his elbow. chucking is when someone throws the ball like a fielder or a baseball pitcher. bending the elbow is not chucking as such.

    Once its allowed batsman will be able to easily counter bowlers because the thought of "he is chucking" will no longer be there. Just like batsman can now play reverse swing much better than before because they are not thinking "he must've tempered with ball to swing unconventionally" ! it will make it fair for all.

  • on August 13, 2014, 1:00 GMT

    @ Khurram S Chaudhry on (August 12, 2014, 19:25 GMT): You stated:

    I thought there was a system that match officials can compare match video with the test video any time if they suspect something? ...

    I checked with one of the umpires who live in the same town where I live. You are misinformed. There is no such system, as part of the prescribed process. Some umpires, on their own had occasionally been trying to do that; perhaps to clear their own mind!

  • on August 13, 2014, 0:40 GMT

    The author says: " ...A bent elbow during delivery is not the vital measure, for example: it is to the degree that the elbow straightens when the ball is released that is. That should not exceed 15 degrees ..."

    Some may not know the history. This '15 degree' was arbitrarily fixed to help out one of the all-time greats, with a stated reason that he was born with a slight issue with his elbow. That one concession, may be with all good intentions, had lead to a license for many to follow, with a bit more courage to flex to the limit. Sometimes even beyond under pressure to perform.

    ICC opened the Pandora's box, consequently the players have been trying to open the lid of the box a bit more, and now ICC is reacting.

  • jmcilhinney on August 13, 2014, 0:18 GMT

    @jokerbala on (August 12, 2014, 15:12 GMT), that number of 15 degrees was settled upon after testing a large number of bowlers to see what was "normal". Fast bowlers were tested as well and it was found that many of them actually flexed their elbows more than many spinners did. It's not as obvious with fast bowlers because their arms move faster and they don't twist as much as spinners but they are just as guilty. That's why people like Ajmal should not be singled out. He's an easy target because he clearly bowls with a bent elbow but, as we all know, there's nothing illegal about bowling with a bent elbow.

  • LillianThomson on August 12, 2014, 23:16 GMT

    The returns of Amir and Asif are just twelve months away.

    Pakistan could survive without an aged Ajmal in a world of Amir and Junaid, indeed the balance of their Test team might be better with a Moeen-style spinning all-rounder like Usman Qadir.

    Ajmal's action must be judged objectively. But if he is banned it just might give Pakistan a chance to shorten their tail, with Qadir batting at 8 and Amir at 9.

    After all, their main problem in Test cricket since the decline of Kamran Akmal and exit of Afridi has been that the last five wickets rarely add more than 50 runs to what Younis and Misbah have accumulated.

  • on August 12, 2014, 22:49 GMT

    How about checking some fast bowlers ? I feel some of them exceeding 20 degrees....

  • on August 12, 2014, 20:44 GMT

    Can everyone please absorb the fact the it's not within the umpires' remit to judge whether a bowler is throwing or on the degree of flex or straightening of his arm, to 15 degrees or otherwise. This applies at all levels of cricket from village 3rd XI up to the Test arena. No umpire is going to call a bowler for throwing in any match unless the the delivery is a blatant throw i.e. similar to a baseball one. It is impossible to judge any measure of straightening of the arm with the human eye, that is why the ICC have reporting process and testing procedure in place to deal with such. It also serves to ensure that the Ross Emerson/Muralitharan throwing call will not happen again. The officials remit is to report their suspicions only and let matters take their own course under test conditions. This reporting process also applies at recreational/amateur level. It appears a number of people have the 'wrong end of the stick' below.

  • on August 12, 2014, 19:25 GMT

    I thought there was a system that match officials can compare match video with the test video any time if they suspect something? and during england series, umpires did compare his match video with the lab videos to see if it is same and with in limits as reported. The umpires in Galle should have been able to do that comparison as well. 

    There should be some system available to match officials by which they can do it there and then. they can compare it with the lab video and should be a cross comparison that it is same action which was cleared or not. 

    Anyway, I dont think it will be much of an issue. Umpires feel some deliveries were suspicious and that means it might be the dosra or he might be doing extra while going wicket less for such a long time. Pakistan will play next series in October against AUS so i hope by that time it will be sorted. PCB should send him for test as soon as possible.

  • Anurag-Singh on August 12, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    Maybe they should seriously consider forcing bowlers to wear shirts with short sleeves.. that's what Ashwin said a while back that a lot of bowlers are getting away with the 15 degree rule because of long shirt sleeves..

  • jokerbala on August 12, 2014, 15:12 GMT

    "A bent elbow during delivery is not the vital measure, for example: it is to the degree that the elbow straightens when the ball is released that is important " The whole problem arises as a flexed elbow is being straightened just before delivering , the key word being - JUST BEFORE . How many degrees of straightening? 15 Degrees the ICC says. How is 15 degree number reached ? how can you say flexing less than 15 degrees gives you no unfair advantage? Can a bowler himself be certain of the degrees he has straightened and more importantly can an umpire?

  • bobmartin on August 12, 2014, 14:33 GMT

    The biggest problem for the umpires is judging the actual degree of straightening... As this article says.. it doesn't matter how bent the arm is at the start of the swing.. it's how much it straightens in the actual delivery.. which must not exceed 15 degrees... Now if anyone is capable of judging that, at the speed it happens. then they must have incredible eyeside and powers of judgment which is probably why so many suspect actions have until now not been reported..with all the replays that are available post play, umpires are now being more diligent with their scrutiny and are tending to err on the safe side. Therefore I think reporting will consequently increase. It's also significant that of those that have been called and tested, the umpires have been proved to be correct.. so it appears that the system seems to be working The ICC seem have got it right this time and we might see more illegal actions banned

  • 10yearstudent on August 12, 2014, 13:22 GMT

    just hoping the right verdict comes out so it betters cricket for the long run

  • Smithie on August 12, 2014, 12:56 GMT

    Umpires should be given the right to request bowlers to bowl in short sleeves if they believe that would assist in their deliberations on the legitimacy of the delivery. It would also give the bowler an indication that his action was to be closely scrutinised and perhaps dissuade him from the intermittent flex beyond 15 degrees.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Smithie on August 12, 2014, 12:56 GMT

    Umpires should be given the right to request bowlers to bowl in short sleeves if they believe that would assist in their deliberations on the legitimacy of the delivery. It would also give the bowler an indication that his action was to be closely scrutinised and perhaps dissuade him from the intermittent flex beyond 15 degrees.

  • 10yearstudent on August 12, 2014, 13:22 GMT

    just hoping the right verdict comes out so it betters cricket for the long run

  • bobmartin on August 12, 2014, 14:33 GMT

    The biggest problem for the umpires is judging the actual degree of straightening... As this article says.. it doesn't matter how bent the arm is at the start of the swing.. it's how much it straightens in the actual delivery.. which must not exceed 15 degrees... Now if anyone is capable of judging that, at the speed it happens. then they must have incredible eyeside and powers of judgment which is probably why so many suspect actions have until now not been reported..with all the replays that are available post play, umpires are now being more diligent with their scrutiny and are tending to err on the safe side. Therefore I think reporting will consequently increase. It's also significant that of those that have been called and tested, the umpires have been proved to be correct.. so it appears that the system seems to be working The ICC seem have got it right this time and we might see more illegal actions banned

  • jokerbala on August 12, 2014, 15:12 GMT

    "A bent elbow during delivery is not the vital measure, for example: it is to the degree that the elbow straightens when the ball is released that is important " The whole problem arises as a flexed elbow is being straightened just before delivering , the key word being - JUST BEFORE . How many degrees of straightening? 15 Degrees the ICC says. How is 15 degree number reached ? how can you say flexing less than 15 degrees gives you no unfair advantage? Can a bowler himself be certain of the degrees he has straightened and more importantly can an umpire?

  • Anurag-Singh on August 12, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    Maybe they should seriously consider forcing bowlers to wear shirts with short sleeves.. that's what Ashwin said a while back that a lot of bowlers are getting away with the 15 degree rule because of long shirt sleeves..

  • on August 12, 2014, 19:25 GMT

    I thought there was a system that match officials can compare match video with the test video any time if they suspect something? and during england series, umpires did compare his match video with the lab videos to see if it is same and with in limits as reported. The umpires in Galle should have been able to do that comparison as well. 

    There should be some system available to match officials by which they can do it there and then. they can compare it with the lab video and should be a cross comparison that it is same action which was cleared or not. 

    Anyway, I dont think it will be much of an issue. Umpires feel some deliveries were suspicious and that means it might be the dosra or he might be doing extra while going wicket less for such a long time. Pakistan will play next series in October against AUS so i hope by that time it will be sorted. PCB should send him for test as soon as possible.

  • on August 12, 2014, 20:44 GMT

    Can everyone please absorb the fact the it's not within the umpires' remit to judge whether a bowler is throwing or on the degree of flex or straightening of his arm, to 15 degrees or otherwise. This applies at all levels of cricket from village 3rd XI up to the Test arena. No umpire is going to call a bowler for throwing in any match unless the the delivery is a blatant throw i.e. similar to a baseball one. It is impossible to judge any measure of straightening of the arm with the human eye, that is why the ICC have reporting process and testing procedure in place to deal with such. It also serves to ensure that the Ross Emerson/Muralitharan throwing call will not happen again. The officials remit is to report their suspicions only and let matters take their own course under test conditions. This reporting process also applies at recreational/amateur level. It appears a number of people have the 'wrong end of the stick' below.

  • on August 12, 2014, 22:49 GMT

    How about checking some fast bowlers ? I feel some of them exceeding 20 degrees....

  • LillianThomson on August 12, 2014, 23:16 GMT

    The returns of Amir and Asif are just twelve months away.

    Pakistan could survive without an aged Ajmal in a world of Amir and Junaid, indeed the balance of their Test team might be better with a Moeen-style spinning all-rounder like Usman Qadir.

    Ajmal's action must be judged objectively. But if he is banned it just might give Pakistan a chance to shorten their tail, with Qadir batting at 8 and Amir at 9.

    After all, their main problem in Test cricket since the decline of Kamran Akmal and exit of Afridi has been that the last five wickets rarely add more than 50 runs to what Younis and Misbah have accumulated.

  • jmcilhinney on August 13, 2014, 0:18 GMT

    @jokerbala on (August 12, 2014, 15:12 GMT), that number of 15 degrees was settled upon after testing a large number of bowlers to see what was "normal". Fast bowlers were tested as well and it was found that many of them actually flexed their elbows more than many spinners did. It's not as obvious with fast bowlers because their arms move faster and they don't twist as much as spinners but they are just as guilty. That's why people like Ajmal should not be singled out. He's an easy target because he clearly bowls with a bent elbow but, as we all know, there's nothing illegal about bowling with a bent elbow.