Jump to content

Talk:Muttiah Muralitharan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Some of the material presented in this article directly plagerise from their provided sources. These need to be removed imediantly, and re-written before being returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.89.154 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This article includes a double-negative, which, as everybody knows, is bad English. It states that the bowler's career has "not been without controversy". I changed it to "has been controversial".

What happened next? The change was reverted and I received a notice saying that I my change constituted vandalism!

Come on guys - get with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Everybody knows? I don't know that that's bad English. Sounds like something you'd hear on the BBC. 165.12.252.12 (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. the two phrases convey a slightly different meaning. sorry, if you can´t get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.166.12 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Murali has maintained that he spells his name Muthiah Muralidaran. Most people, from news agencies to official shirt makers, spell it differently - how should it appear here? --Tom 08:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the main article should use 'Muralitharan', the spelling by which I think most of us would agree he is best-known to English speakers. However, I've set up Muthiah Muralidaran as a redirect to this article. --Ngb 10:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could you provide a source for the claim he spells his name as Muralidaran? Seems to be we should mention it. I'm rather suprised he doesn't at least try to force the Sri Lankan Cricket team to spell his name properly if that's how he spells it, I guess it just isn't a great issue for him Nil Einne 19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
New item quoted on a fan club sitePaul Fisher 06:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the name on his shirt was Muralidaran when I saw him play against South Africa in Perth earlier this year. Paul Fisher 06:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Channel 9 Australia has recently begun presenting the Sri Lanka vs Austrlaia Test Series 2007. His name is presented as Muralidaran not Muralitharan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.66.190 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
He spells it Muralidaran. Even aside from this: I'll put it forward that you can't have a Wikipedia article that has the first presented spelling being "Muralidaran", but then have the rest of the article refer to "Muralitharan" and have no page when you type in "Muttiah Muralidaran". I've created the "Muttiah Muralidaran" page to redirect to this page, but it still stands that the opening sentence "Muttiah Muralidaran... often referred to as Muttiah Muralitharan" should be modified such that either the name of the page reflects the first name listed, or the first name listed reflects the name of the page. Cyril Washbrook 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Additional note: a decision has to be made whether to follow his own spelling of the name (Muralidaran) or what has been popularised (Muralitharan). At one point on the page, we've got a sentence saying "His name is actually spelt Muttiah Muralidaran" - in which case there is absolutely no reason to have the rest of the article and the title of the page using "Muralitharan". Cyril Washbrook 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see discussion at WT:CRIC on this topic. For now, I've reverted the name change to Muttiah Muralitharan (the way it is spelt across the English language cricket world (I'm not saying that it's right, but...), until a reliable reference can be found otherwise. Then we can discuss further. –MDCollins (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Reference from The Age, which in addition to detailing chronology of the apparently variable etymology, has also cited (1) what Muralidaran has himself provided, (2) what his name has been recorded as, and (3) what he wears on his own jumper. The spelling given is Muthiah Muralidaran. Link here. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "Spelling of name" section to the article.

Bradman's comment

Australia's greatest ever cricketer, Sir Donald Bradman quoted as saying it "was the worst piece of umpiring (he had) ever encountered"

I would like to see some proof for this. For one thing, it is *very* unlikely that DBG will make a controversial statement like this (unless it is Roland Perry 'quoting' Don). For another, a google for "worst piece of umpiring" Murali Bradman comes up with 31 hits across 10 sites, but *all* of those are copies of the Wiki article. Tintin 04:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This line was added by an IP editor [1] 19 months ago and who hasn't done anything since then. One other change made in the above edit also looks very fishy.

Considering how carefully Bradman usually used words to avoid controversies, this comment looks very suspect. I am going to delete that line in a day or two, unless some authentic proof turns up by then. Tintin 05:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Good call, delete it. I was going to write a comment about how the (he had) paraphrase was ambiguous anyway. Be sure to remove the quote from Timeline of Cricket as well when you do this. Thanks! -- postglock 11:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The line is deleted. Please do not revert it without a decent source to back you up. Tintin 14:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources added. Previous poster just had "worst piece of umpiring" instead of "worst example of umpiring". 202.67.105.151 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Bradman didn't say that exactly, what he said was "For me, this was the worst example of umpiring that I have witnessed, and against everything the game stands for" (source: http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/135717.html) Pubuman 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Pubuman

There does seem to be some doubt on if these are Bradman's words. The Age newspaper has an article on this (Dec 11 2004)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/The-Don-and-Murali/2004/12/10/1102625532302.html

Quote:

But there is a clash afoot as to the credibility of these Bradman quotes that has the Bradman Museum seeking legal advice on the matter. Its curator, Richard Mulvaney, says the words are "not the Don Bradman I knew at that time", and that "if he's written that down, I'd fall over". Tom Thompson, however, claims to have Bradman's words "in written form". Words like: "This was the worst example of umpiring I have witnessed, and against everything the game stands for." Words that accuse Umpire Hair of reversing the development of Test cricket by a decade. The fact that Thompson initially told me that Bradman was angry at Hair contravening the laws of cricket by calling Murali from the bowler's end, when in fact the laws empower either umpire to make such a call, may or may not be significant. The fact that Darrell Hair's name was spelt, within one such Bradman quote as "Darrel Hare" by Thompson's website also may or may not be significant. It is explained by Thompson as a "spelling error by a web maker in Wales".

End Quote.

However, Thompson and the Bradman Museum have been at odds over the rights to Bradman's letters etc, so its a bit hard to know - until Thompson produces the actual letter.

I favour removing the Bradman quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.49.10 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are very good sources to point that Bradman did indeed say those words, but only one (the curator) who says he didn't. Since the letters DO exist the line should be added!123.255.21.166 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Website

Can I just say that the website recently added on to this article is really well researched and written. Certainly clears up a lot of issues the average cricket fan may have about the no ball rule in relation to throwing. Could I request either the author of that website or someone else to incorporate some of that info into a subsection of the current no ball article or even make a new article for it? This issue is certainly a very important one in cricket and I don't think the info available on wikipedia currently is enough. 202.67.109.206 11:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Holding and Bedi retraction

The link provided as a ref for Holding and Bedi's retractions is dead, but the article in question is reproduced here. It does't mention Bedi and only quotes Holding second-hand. I've replaced the link with a full quote that gives Holding's response in his own words. It appears that as recently as December 2005 there was still bad blood between Murali and Bedi, so I'm skeptical that he's retracted his criticism. --Muchness 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wisden's "Greatest Bowler of all Time"

"In 2002, Wisden named him the greatest bowler of all time..." Perhaps it's already been referenced somewhere in the article, in which case you could direct me to the link. However, this statement is rather striking. Certainly, he was " Wisden 2002 Cricketer of the Year," but I doubt that they would claim that he was the greatest bowler "of all time." For a while, he was the highest wickettaker (in test matches)but as of writing, Warne has overtaken Murali (again).

Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong.If it's true, it should be referenced at the very least. Um, I'm new to this Wikipedia discussion thing, so if I've breached any of the conduct rules in editing my own piece of discussion, let me know. Matt L Dunedin 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Matt L Dunedin

Wisden did come up with some (IMNSHO, pointless) top 100 lists at that time. Like a list 100 best innings (with Bradman's 270 in 1936-7 at No.1) and 100 bowling efforts. They may have made some lists about the bowlers and batsmen too. Tintin (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Further proof that Murali was evaluated as the best bowler ever by Wisden in 2002 can be found at http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/dec/13wisden.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.192.42 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, perhaps if someone could find a link to it that would clear things up. Cheers for the info. Matt L Dunedin 08:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find the original one but this is one of the many that refer to it. Tintin (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Muralitharan wasn't Wisden's cricketer of the year in 2002, that was in 1999, and the same player cannot be named twice. Pubuman 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Pubuman


I have removed contents that he had taken wickets against weak cricketting nations. If Warne has not taken enough wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangaladesh it may be because he has not played as many matches as Muralidharan against them. Muralidharan has shown consistency in taking wickets against all cricketting nations irrespective of whether they are strong or weak.Ref cricinfo website.--Indianstar 04:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why this article is appearing in Wikiproject India--Indianstar 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Greatest bowler of all time" reference and link should be deleted. The Wisden profile of Murali only notes his 1999 top player award, and makes no mention of his being voted the "greatest bowler of all time". An internet search yields only the BBC entry and a plethora of non-reputable sources, all of which are derived from the BBC website, or list no sources whatsoever. If Wisden does not acknowledge having awarded Murali, though the BBC does, I think the situation would warrant us taking the information from the horses mouth as it were. The BBC report is most likely an error. Cragialist 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a legitimate piece of information. This has been widely reported and nothing is more reliable than the BBC. It is too bad some australian bigots feel that they have to slight the article and delete Murali's numerous accolades to make up for the fact that Murali is miles ahead of their favourite bowler.

"Nothing is more reliable than the BBC"...Hmmm, would interviewing a Taxi driver they had mistaken for a computer expert count? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Goma. WISDEN DOES NOT RECOGNISE MURALITHARAN HAVING BEEN AWARDED THE TITLE "the greatest bowler of all time." The only reputable source I can find is the BBC, all the other websites have borrowed from this.

In the wisden almanack there is a "notes" section where the 'honours' of each individual are annunciated. Under Murali it lists:

Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1999

Under Bradman it lists:

New South Wales Career Span: 1927-28 to 1933-34 South Australia Career Span: 1935-36 to 1948-49< Wisden Cricketer of the Year 1931 Australian Cricket Hall of Fame 1996 Knighted for services to cricket 1949 Appointed Commander of the Order of Australia (AC) 1979 Selected as one of five Wisden Cricketers of the Century, 2000

My question: If Wisden acknowledges having awarded Bradman a position as one of the five cricketers of the century why would it not acknowledge Murali being noted as the "greatest bowler"? This is a valid quesiton, and certainly casts doubt over the BBC report. Furthermore, Bradman being entitled the "greatest batsman"-something additionally mentioned in the BBC report-is also not listed under his almanack entry. If you can find an official Wisden declaration then I will be satisfied. But it seems a bit fishy as it is. By the way, your mention of Warne shows your true motivations. Cragialist 14:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century is irrelevant when it comes to the greatest bowler ranking because Murali's career only took off AFTER 2000. His career since then has been incomparable. Chulaww

After nearly 500 edits, apart from some stats and a long section on chucking, the article contains hardly four lines about his career *sigh*. Tintin (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cragialist, I am inclined to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt and hopefully this discussion will in time deliver a citation supporting the news item. It is a good spot though. —Moondyne 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't anyone here have the 2003 Wisden (or possibly the 2003 Australian version, it may be there)? Should put an end to the discussion... Sam Vimes | Address me 11:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This source is not sufficient to cite that Murali is 'generally regarded as the greatest bowler of all time', as that is a highly subjective statement involving many other factors than just statistics. If Murali made Wisden Cricketers of the Century then I could see the rationale for including such a statement. To match the statement ot the source, I would say it would be better to write 'regarded statistically as the greatest bowler of all time'--GiantSpitoon 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is chosen for the Wisden Cricketers of the Century doesn't mean he is generally regarded as one of the greatest - it's Wisden's opinion in both cases.. anyway, Murali couldn't have made the Cricketers of the Century because he started his amazing run after 2000.. so the 'statistically' part should not be included - I would agree on saying that Wisden saying he was the greatest and in the same way Warne is considered 'one of the greatest' by Wisden and take out generally altogether. --Chulaww 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-sensical paragraph

"Vocal critics of Murilatharan's action were former Test cricketers: West Indian Michael Holding, a member of the ICC's Advisory Panel on Illegal Deliveries, and Australian Dean Jones. Holding had been quoted[citation needed] as being in "110% agreement" with Bedi regarding Muralitharan's action and Jones had said "by my interpretation, I think he throws it". Following the ICC study, Holding, a member of the panel that conducted the ICC study stated that, "The scientific evidence is overwhelming... 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."

Who/what is Bedi? Not mentioned previously in the article.

Michael Holding seems to be saying here in fact all bowlers bend their arms. How then is this being a 'vocal critic' of one particular bowler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.147.222.14 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC).


Greatest

I've asked for a citation for the statement that Murali is "generally regarded as the greatest off-spin bowler in cricket history" as 'generally' is unconvincing unless backed up. Even if can be attributed to a reliable source, it is still vague. I'd rank Jim Laker higher then him anyway... WillE 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

IT doesnt matter what you rank. Just check any number of articles here[[2]] Pubuman 09:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No reply from you, the citation request goes.Pubuman 04:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
To say he is THE greatest contravenes WP:NPOV so I've changed it to one of the greatest. --BlackJack | talk page 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If Murali isn't the greatest off-spinner, then in the same vein Warne isn't the greatest leg-spinner. Benaud's viewpoint isn't a general consensus. What about Grimmett or O'Reilly? I think it's fair to say that both of them are generally considered the greatest in their arts.

He isn't almost universally regarded as the greatest offspinner. For a start, many people like Bishen Bedi openly consider him to be cheating and thus invalid. Also people like Michael Holding and Richie Benaud among others don't think he is the best - they think he chucks, although they aren't saying it. If you want to change Warne to "universally regarded as one of the best, and by many to be best" or something similar, then I don't care. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you back that up with actual sources? If not it is pointless to make such statements.Pubuman 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishen Bedi is the only one who makes stupid comments like that. And if you didn't know Michael Holding has back-tracked and agreed with the ICC findings. Your hunch that they thing he chucks is a pretty lame argument. I'm fine with both Murali and Warne having "one of" instead of "the".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulaww (talk • contribs)

Dude, I am not saying that he chucks, I'm saying that many guys don't rate him because they think he does chuck, even though they won't say that they think that he does. That doesn't change the fact that many people don't think he is the best, irrelevant of what their internal reasoning. As for people like Holding or Gilchrist or anybody else, nobody will say they think that he chucks even though they think he does chuck because they don't want to be fined by the ICC. All these surveys of Australian cricketers show that they think MacGill is the second best spinner in the world after Warne. Obviously either they are extremely biased, or they don't consider Murali to be legit. It's obvious they think that he chucks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is WP:NPOV especially as in this case no one can possibly say he is a better bowler than Laker, or vice-versa. --BlackJack | talk page 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and also with ur edit.Pubuman 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

References to heckling of Muralitharan unfairly removed

I added references to Muralitharan being heckled by crowds. However they have been removed twice now without any justification given. What is wrong with having well sourced, relevant material in the article?

"Muralitharan has voiced his frustration at routinely being heckled by Australian crowds who accuse him of throwing - one popular jeer is "NO BALL!" [16] [17] [18] [19]." Kuifjeenbobbie 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It should stay, because it has affected his career in that he was withdrawn from tours to Australia because of this hecking (the 2004 mid year tour). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Murali's bowling

I know Murali's good but how did he get 12 wickets without bowling a ball? According to this page Murali got 700 wickets with the same number of deliveries as it took him to get 688. Me thinks some careless editing has occurred. I will correct this when Cricinfo updates itself (as I cant be bothered to work it out myself). Monsta666 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I added a trivia section but it was removed without justification. Surely one of the attractions of Wikipedia is to have some trivia about people? Kuifjeenbobbie 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA – trivia sections are discouraged, and information that is considered tangential or irrelevant may not warrant inclusion. Additionally, WP:EL prohibits linking to pages that violate the copyrights of others, which is almost certainly the case in the provided reference. --Muchness 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Best average of modern spinners

Murali's average is better than any modern spinner (since 1960 at least). Jim Laker, who has a slightly better average, played his last test match in 1959. So please stop reverting my edit without a justifiable reason. Chulaww

When you play match-after-match against poorly ranked teams (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, etc.) on tailor-made pitches, of course you're going to have a good average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.20.21 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

picture

Can anyone find a better picture? One that shows his face? Speedboy Salesman 08:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

bias

Not much on this article about Muralis achivements, semas to be weighted towards discrediting him and his bowling action despite being cleared by an AUSTRALIAN tresting centre - nothing about the racism he received in Australia either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.18 (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a chucker is not racism.–Shniken1 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Brett lee is a chucker - who was cleared by his own coach.. being called a coon is racism however - expect maybe not in australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.3.18 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Check (9th November 2007)

POV Check due to seemingly biased presentation of article in favour of Muttiah Muralitharan. It is important that the article be kept as neutral as possible. There is also evidence of emotional language being used. The article needs to present the facts in an un-biased way, especially as this article concerns one of the more controversial bowlers of all time. It is suggested that more needs to be presented on both sides of the argument and more needs to be written on other parts of Muttiah Muralitharan's career. The controversy should not dominate this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.66.190 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. There are continual problems with POV on this page, and I have just made a series of edits in line with WP:NPOV. Another editor to this page appears to dispute this, but to make a brief statement about the nature of sources - just because a statement is cited, it does not mean that the resulting text is impartial or lacking in inappropriate POV. Some elements are blatantly POV, and I have removed uncited statements or removed inappropriately placed statements that are intended to impart a partial POV. My edits have largely been general attempts across the entire article to redress inappropriately biased statements and to add "citation needed" tags where necessary. However, as the above user may have hinted, the section on the controversy of his bowling action is just too large and disorganised. It's clear that it has become a tit-for-tat battle between editors who support the validity of Muralidaran's action and others who do not. Consequently, there are paragraphs that attack his action followed immediately by direct refutations. That's not how Wikipedia should be presented (WP:NOT). Further edits will be necessary. Cyril Washbrook 05:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is still badly needing POV checking and also needs to be rewritten due to poor grammar and style. Just look at the bit about Murali's batting for a perfect example. BartBart (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

References

I have tagged the reference section as needing cleanup, and put in a hidden comment. The references need to be more than bare URLs, they ought really to provide sources, and have titles and retrieval dates. SGGH speak! 12:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on controversy in intro

I changed the controversy section in the intro of the article, to mention only that Murali's bowling action has been called into question and has been cleared by the ICC. I removed the sentence that followed that, which again said "however some sections of the cricket community remain unconvinced". We can go on saying it's controvorsial, ICC has cleared it, some people don't like it, others agree with it blah blah, but that'll be pretty ridiculous, unnecessarily redundant, and a violation of WP:NPOV.

I also removed the mention that he surpassed Warne's record after bowling Collingwood, which really shouldn't be in the intro. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous at all to objectively report facts, and additionally, you've just violated NPOV right then and there. Instead of being objective, you've created a bias toward the ICC's decision, by making it appear that there's no opposition or disagreement by removing the FACT that people are unconvinced by the ICC's tests. Just because the ICC cleared it, doesn't mean everything is all sunshine and roses; the amount of verifiable opposition to the decision not only proves it, but also makes it notable enough for inclusion.124.176.39.150 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pseudo-scientific studies"?

I'm not sure that the School of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the University of Western Australia would appreciate the above term being applied to their testing methodology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.168.125 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Although to be scientific the data and results need to be published so they stand up to scientific standards, don't they? And most of the information quoted by people (such as the 99% of all bowlers in history are/were throwers, only Sarwan of those tested weren't throwers, etc.) are not scientific because the data has never been published. Some would argue that there is good reason for this, due to the inability to accurately test people bowling in matches with a long sleeved shirt on. BartBart (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not scientific because he knew he was being tested. There is no way that he is going to use the same bowling action that he uses in matches, whether he is consciously or subconsciously changing his action there is every possiblity that he is. To be scientific the study would have to take this possiblity into account. Shniken1 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Egg thrown at the Sri-Lankans

Is it article worthy the section pointing out that a carload of hoons threw one egg at the Sri Lankan contingent, one of whom happened to be Muralitharan? And his quote "When you come to Australia, you expect such incidents" does really pale into significance when compared to suicide bombers that roam streets in other cricketing nations. Imagine if another cricketer said "When you come to Pakistan/Sri Lanka, you expect such incidents" if they were talking to a bombing. BartBart (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the egg thrower specifically has cricket motives, whereas the Islamist or the Tamil Tiger isn't really interested in cricket, they just want attention for their politics and ideology. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. It was stated that they probably didn't know who they threw the egg at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shniken1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very article worthy. If this happened to an Aussie cricketer in the streets of Colombo, it is more than likely that the team would have returned home.

Subjective and likely nonsense comment from unsigned comment directly above. BartBart (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The nonsense is coming from you!123.255.21.166 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GA failed

This article needs a lot of work to reach GA.

  • MOS violations in the headers. Only the first word should be capped unless it is a proper noun: "Throwing Citation and Clearance" -> "Throwing citation and clearance" etc
  • Put footnotes immediately after punctuation, and no spaces between multi-refs
  • Years and dates need to be formatted consistently- links or no links, date-month, month-date etc
  • Refs need to be fully filled out with names of publishers, authors and accessdates in a consistent format. There are many inconcistencies in the formatting of the references
  • YouTube is not a reliable reference for the run-out with sangakkara
  • Refs needed for the milestone wickets list
  • The article needs to give a proper chronological account of his career. The current international career section does not do this. It simply starts with a short stats wrap-up. The Test and ODI section, likewise do not chronicle his rise through the bowling ranks. In the first few years of his career, prior to the Hair incident, his record was very ordinary, about 80 wickets in 30 Tests at an average of 30+. It was only after that his productive run started. The article does not chart the highs and lows of his career.
  • The career section has unsourced parts, and is also not written in past tense as is normal for describing historic events
  • Article only deals in random match results without showing broader year long performance, and it basically on deals with positive events.
  • Murali has had little success on Australian soil - Test average over 50 and he also has quite a high average on Indian soil in Tests and none of these have been discussed.
  • Another thing not discussed is that Murali has taken a large number of wickets against Zimbabwe (post exodus) and Bangladesh that is often discussed in the cricket media but is not mentioned here.
  • The large amount of spin that he extracts is not mentioned, which is unusual
  • The 2004 Test record race with Warne needs to be explained further.
  • Likewise, the ODI section only contains random good matches and nothing about the ups and downs. His no-balling in the matches should be integrated into the ups and downs in the chronology section as they changed his career path
  • He is often compared and debated by cricket pundits wrt to Warne. The different arguments in this debate should be discussed in the article. In the article, there is none of this, except for discussion of his action. People talk about the different trajectories, flight, speed variations. A lot more has been said about his bowling repertoire, apart from throwing allegations.
  • The throwing section is undue weight - about 3 times larger than the actual cricket
  • It is not encyclopedic to put the list of publications in the main body in the manner that has been done
  • Needs to be pointed out that SL withdrew Murali from the latter part of the 95/96 Australian tour because of the repeated no-balling.
  • Other comments need to be put in about the Hair no-ball. Yes, Bradman did make that comment, but Hair's actions got a mixed reception, and Bradmans' comment does not reflect cricekt community consensus
  • The scientific part of the article also seems to be undue weight, since the article seems to suggest that they far outnumber the normal opinions of the cricketing public, whatever they are. It might also be pointed out that Gilchrist got fined after he criticised Murali.
  • The run out seems to be undue weight, 50% of the batting section. When people think of Murali batting, they normally think of his highly aggressive style (65 strike rate in Tests) which is usually unreliable and unsustainable
  • Personal info should be combined with the family info in the early childhood section
  • Should not refer to him as "Murali" in the general text.

Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review follow-up

Thanks for the prompt review and the useful comments. Also the reviewer showed an indepth knowledge of the subject.

The observations fall into 4 main areas:

  • technical
  • references
  • structure
  • contents

Technical aspects of not meeting standards etc, can be addressed fairly easily. Regarding referencing, considering that there were over 100 references in this rather "difficult" article the editors have done quite well in this area. The milestones should be referenced and some references should be brought up to Wiki standards.

Moving forward the main focus should be to improve the structure and contents. These two areas go hand in hand. I have attempted an initial reorganization of the structure inline with the proposed recommendations. As new contents are added the structure can be further tuned. The international career section needs to be developed, based on the different phases in Murali's career.

The various scientific references were included because there was a school of thought that the process followed to clear Murali was "pseudo-scientific", and ICC just change laws to accommodate Murali. So the public needed to be aware that a large amount of independent research has been done my the scientific community (without the influence of ICC) that triggered the so called changes. However the section have been moved to the bottom of the article based on the recommendation. Niranjan24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.192.42 (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjan24 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Profile Cricinfo" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49636.html|title=Muttiah Muralitharan Profile Cricinfo|first=Charlie|last=Austin|accessdate=2008-02-06}}
    • {{cite news|url=http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/49636.html|title=Muttiah Muralitharan Profile Cricinfo|first=Charlie|last=Austin |accessdate=2008-02-06}}
  • "Cricinfo Profile" :
    • [http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/93276.html Cricinfo - Records - Test matches - Most wickets in career<!-- Bot generated title -->]
    • [http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/player/49636.html Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Muttiah Muralitharan<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Test wicket milestones

It would be nice to have date rather than just test match numbers, this would be more helpful for looking at the figures Franny-K (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things

1. Why is this under the India wiki project? 2. Shouldnt Muralitharan (daran?)'s name be in Sinhalese as well considering he is Sri Lankan (or just stick with English)

123.255.38.129 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. From Wikipedia:WikiProject India: "The India WikiProject is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the Republic of India and the history of the Indian subcontinent." The subcontinent includes Sri Lanka. Jason A. Recliner (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevant material?

I blanked this "Muttiah Muralitharan is a Sri Lankan Tamil of Indian origin. His paternal grandfather Periyasamy Sinasamy came from South India to work in the tea plantations of central Sri Lanka in 1920.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). He later returned to India with his daughters and settled in Tiruchirapalli. However his sons, including Muralitharan's father, remained in Sri Lanka.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)." from the start of "Personal life" section. That should start out being about him... not an explanation of why he is a tamli of indian origin (is he really? I thought all tamils .. and sinhalese for that matter were of indian origin?). If someone can add this bit in a nicer more tactful way do so. Pubuman (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pubuman, the terms "Sri Lankan Tamil of Indian origin" or "Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka" have a special significance and refer to a specific group of people in Sri Lanka. They are partly descended from workers sent from South India to Sri Lanka in the 19th and 20th centuries to work in coffee, tea and rubber plantations. Some also migrated on their own as merchants and as other service providers during the British period. Refer to Wiki article on Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, for further details (Note: Muralitharan heads the list of prominent people in the article). After Ceylon (later Sri Lanka) gained independence in 1948, most "Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka" were declared stateless and lost their voting rights. It was only after the Srima-Shasthri pact of 1964 that Sri Lanka and India agreed on a basis to grant citizenship to these marginalised people. Some returned India (like Muarali's grand father)and while a majority remained in Sri Lanka (Like Murali's father). So I feel that it is very important to note that a sporting star was born out this community of people. The term "Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka" is very well understood in Sri Lanka, and unlikely to be confused with other Tamils living in Sri Lanka (refer to Sri Lankan Tamils) whose fore-fathers may have come from India may centuries ago. cheers. Niranjan24 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC).

The ethnicity information in relevant as Muralitharan may have ended up as a stateless individual or an Indian national. He may been lost to cricket altogether. Ethnicity information has been included under the heading Ethnic background. (Niranjan24 (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

Five wickets in an innings

I don't think the table is necessary, is lengthy, and it's already in the main article. Comments on this? Lugnuts (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Warne comparisons

Why is every other line in this article about him and Warne? Seems a little too much of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.119.68 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Personal opinions, however multitudinous they be, should not be given the same weight as evidence-based practice and scientific process. For this reason i agree that opinion quotes ('i think his action is ok' / 'i think he chucks') have equally no place here. The issue is on all fours with the MMR vaccine page. The page on the vaccine does not in any way suggest that it causes autism. However the autism controversy is mentioned, and a separate page details the scientific evidence behind the issue. I think the same approach should be adopted here.

(1) There is a host of factual and video evidence, University of Western Australia technical information, plus video footage of M.Muralitharan bowling in a brace that disallows any elbow joint mobility that is readily accessible to anyone. The first argument against his action, which is 'technological whitewashing' is hence as valid on this page as allegations on faking the moon landings is on the 'Moon' page. (2) The second argument stems from accusations that the International Cricket Council changed the previous rules governing a legal delivery to specifically accomodate Muralitharan. The ICC has made its position very clear on the second issue. Biomechanical analysis (BMA) of bowling actions is a very recent development. Upon its application the previous rules were found to be inadequate in accomodating 99% of current bowlers. hence the rule change. Hence although the rule was not changed with Muralitharan in mind, it was the inquiry into his action that brought BMA into the picture, prompting the rule change. I think references to buttress (1) and (2) could be gathered easily. This page needs fact, not opinion.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhikaD 123.231.12.58 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is probably one of the more controversial pages about cricket in Wikipedia. I dispute the NPOV of several statements. Some of the statements read more like Sri Lankan media claims than neutral description. For example:

Hair was widely criticised by players and fans alike, with Don Bradman quoted as saying it "was the worst piece of umpiring I have ever encountered".

Maybe the Don said that, but Hair was also lauded by many, as finally having the guts to do something about what many had considered a dubious bowling action for several years.

I agree. This article is hardly NPOV. I've seen him bowl\\\\ chuck (first hand evidence). There is no way its legal. KymFarnik (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Waugh went on to say that he felt Muralitharan's action was perfectly legal.

Another quote saying Murali's action is legitimate. Just as many prominent cricketers and commentators have made statements about Murali's action being clearly illegal. Why don't any of those appear here?

There is speculation that the match referee's actions were an attempt to de-rail Muralitharan's attempt to become the all-time leading wicket taker. Former players like Arjuna Ranatunga believe this to be a 'white conspiracy' with some Australians and Englishmen wishing to get the name Muralitharan expunged from cricket records. Ranatunga asserted that Muralitharan was being picked on because of his skin colour.

While true, this is hardly balanced. Many outside Sri Lanka see Rantunga's assertions as a persecution complex and an attempt to hang the emotive label of "racism" on what is simply a legitimate concern over the legality of Murali's bowling action.

In summary, I think this article needs a serious NPOV treatment, with care to address both sides of the issue. I do not want to swing things the other way and end up with bias in the opposite direction, nor do I want to cause a reaction by anyone who may agree with the view currently presented. So I'm leaving this comment here to see what other people think. dmmaus 03:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree, you can't only tell one side of the story. Any neutral discussion of Murali's action would have to include what his detractors say as well (the "javelin thrower" comments come immediately to mind). Shane King 01:07, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

From an English perspective, it does seem that Australian observers are much more hostile overall to Murali than those over here. There are a number of detractors in England too, certainly, but I'd say the considerably majority of cricket fans here were on Murali's side in this, especially since the recent data showing that more or less everyone chucked! Loganberry 01:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the controversy happening on our doorstep probably contributes to that, as well as many former Australian players being amoung his most vocal critics. I also think that the Australia-Sri Lanka cricketing relationship isn't the best for a variety of other reasons (Darren Lehmann's racial slurs, Ajuna Ranatunga's long series of jibes, etc), and that carries through to the fans. Finally, Murali is probably seen as a whinger by many (especially after he decided not to tour), and that's not something that goes down well with Australian culture. So there are a variety of reasons why Australians are less likely to be on his side. Shane King 07:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
That all sounds very plausible. On the other hand, there are some people in England who'd characterise the Australian reaction as whinging at a bowler good enough to get them out! (For the sake of honesty, I have mixed feelings about Murali - I desperately want him to be the genius he appears to be, but I can't shake the doubts entirely.) Loganberry 00:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I certainly agree there have been whingers on both sides. It probably does appear bad that the country most vocal about him is one that has been able to dominate most bowlers, with Murali being one of the few exceptions. Personally, I think his action has always probably been within the letter of the law (or at least no worse than plenty of other bowlers). The spirit? I'm not so sure, that's a hard question to answer. Shane King 00:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I really dont think Bishan Bedi's comments of "why should a bowler be allowed to chuck because he has a defective arm?" are appropriate anymore, seeing how a study conducted by the ICC have found almost all bowlers to be 'chuckers'.

If Bishan Bedi restracts the comments, then sure. As far as I know, he hasn't, so we're to assume he still holds the same view. The NPOV policy says we're to report on which people hold a certain point of view, regardless of whether that view is correct or rational. Shane King 11:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not have an obligation to report Bedi's comments. Muralitharan has plenty of detractors, many of whom make far more rational arguments than Bedi. Why not report them instead?

I reported Bedi because he's one of the most vocal and well known. He's also not Australian, which is a bonus, since the article at the time made it seem like all the opposition was coming from Aussies. You're welcome to put other perspectives in if you feel they'd be more appropriate though. Be bold and add them in! :) Shane King 11:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I added some criticism of Muralitharan's action by former greats Michael Holding and Dean Jones, comments which they have since retracted. I'm not going to remove Bedi's comments if you want them to remain. I just feel that they are very rude and not quite appropriate.

Good additions, I like them. I agree Bedi's comments are rude, but I think that's really the point. An article about Murali needs to show the level of passion he's invoked. If one of his critics sounds rude, who's the one who looks bad, Murali or the critic? Shane King 13:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Made a mockery

The section "Beyond the world record" reads like a sports article:

"In July 2008, Muralitharan and Ajantha Mendis made a mockery of India's strong batting reputation as Sri Lanka won the first Test by a record innings and 239 runs in Colombo."

Can it be revised? --Boy.pockets (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to think that section is unneeded totally. Besides, it has got no material on the world record or 'beyond' it. I'm deleting it until someone comes up with a good reason on why they put it up there. MikeLynch (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Tags

Please DO NOT Remove the Sinhala Name Tag in this page,Every Sri Lankan based Wiki page contains Name tags in both Langs,I have noticed from very beginning,some extremists are going on REMOVING the Sinhala Tag,This is Very bad and Unfair.Shu-sai-chong (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Two table issues

One very important, one minor:

  • Dude. Stop. Think. I'd love to. But I don't know where to access a completely reliable source of the data. Do you? If you do, please add it...or direct me to it, and I will. Get it? Got it? Good.—DCGeist (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done first bit. Added a column for number of matches and added reference in the mean time too. However I don't know a ref to do the second task. In future if you need to work with cricket stats try Cricinfo and CricketArchive. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 5:48 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

Is he still playing?

"Muralitharan was one of the most successful bowlers in the game. He plays domestic..."

If he's still playing on some teams, it should be clearer, and state, "He still plays domestic...". If he doesn't play at all anymore, it should be changed to, "He played domestic..." and changed to refer to his entire career, or removed altogether. --Atkinson (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of name

This article is a bit of a mess at the moment, randomly switching between Muralitharan and Muralidaran, sometimes both in the same paragraph. I am going to change it back to Muralitharan as that is the name of the article and by far the most common version used in English language media. Dergraaf (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Italic textFile:Italic text' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.131.178 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

New article to show all his records

This article seems too lengthy. A new article could be created and the following sections could be mooved there with just a breaf summary in the main article

  • World records and achievements
  • Five wickets in an innings
  • Best bowling performances
  • Cricket Awards
  • Man of the match in test cricket
  • Man of the match in One day internationals
Naveed (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Why has the table containing Ten wickets in a match been removed? There is no separate article about this either. I first included this table may be 5 years ago. Niranjan24 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a mess

For example, in the 2 opening paragraphs it switches confusingly back and forth between Test wickets and ODI wickets.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Muttiah Muralitharan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muttiah_Muralitharan/Archive_1&oldid=1137029172"