Chris Broad sours special series

Australia's tour had been memorable for so many good reasons: the rivalry between Murali and Warne, the strokeplay of Jayasuriya and Lehmann, the good spirit between the two teams. Unfortunately, though, the end of a special series was soured by the actions of Chris Broad, an ICC match referee on debut.

His decision to report Murali to the ICC for having a suspect bowling action when he bowls the "doosra" or "other one" has enraged cricket board authorities, who suspect that he came into the series with a pre-conceived plans of blackballing Sri Lanka's star spinner.

Broad, interestingly, acted unilaterally without prompting from the umpires in the last two tests, Steve Bucknor and David Orchard. Deeper discussion with his fellow match officials would have been illuminating because they could have informed him that Murali's doosra was certainly not new.

Broad said at the media conference that "well informed sources" had told him that the delivery was new. Hogwash and marbles! Murali has been bowling his doosra for at least five years, as anyone who follows Sri Lanka cricket closely enough knows.

Just read through archived papers on the Internet and read at how India's journalists marveled at the delivery back in August 2001. During earlier days, though, it was less effective because he lacked control and his astonishing corkscrewing wrist was weaker.

The delivery was branded "new" by England's journalists during their tour last year, more because they wanted to add bite to their stories than anything else. Murali didn't help matters by talking about "tricks up his sleeve" but he was referring to his backspinner, which is still to be unveiled.

Of course, the fact that Broad messed up his facts does not mean that he is not entitled to his own opinions. If he genuinely believes there is a problem then he is quite within his right to report his action. But authorities in Colombo are not convinced.

They are concerned that Broad is too close to the current crop of England players and media, some of whom have long harboured doubts about Murali, which is understandable if they have not seen first hand the scientific evidence to the contrary, carried out by three separate and independent research institutes.

But Broad did report Murali and his decision cannot now be reversed. The positive in all this is that further scientific scrutiny provides him with an opportunity to finally clear his name. If the report clears Murali -- the board is very confident it will, as is Murali -- then he should be finally left in peace to bowl.

Ideally, the report should be finalised before he breaks Courtney Walsh's world record too, although that may be difficult. It would be a tragedy for Murali, and Sri Lanka, if that glorious achievement were to marred by a cloud of suspicion hanging over his head. Murali deserves better.