Article: PAK Agha Akbar
Agha Akbar15-Dec-2001Agha Akbar: “By selecting Shoaib Akhtar for the tour of Bangladesh, the PCB is taking on the ICC. It would not have done so unless it was confident of a strong enough defence to get the tearaway speedster exonerated.”Following are the excerpts from the Department of Human Movement and Exercise Sciences, University of Western Australia’s report on Shoaib Akhtar’s bowling action:
i) His action from visual inspection is the same as was analysed in Perth in 2001 for the PCB.
ii) The abduction (or valgus posture) of the forearm at the elbow joint (outward orientation) and excessive extension (hypertension) at the elbow joint (backward bend beyond the arm being in a straight line) viewed during deliveryare aspects of his action that can not be modified. This was discussed at length in the [earlier] report.
iii) Viewing any three-dimensional action from a single video camera is a practice that should be avoided where possible, as it often leads to erroneous decisions being made based on perception rather than fact. The erroneous perception is due to the abnormal abduction and hyperextended elbow posture that occurs in Mr Ahktar’s bowling action. Any constant three dimensional angle when viewed from different single video camera angles will appear to flex and extend as the upper arm rotates about the line from the elbow joint centre to the should joint centre.
iv) Mr. Akhtar was born with an abnormal upper limb (bowling arm). This limb will always give the impression of an unorthodox position during delivery, because of his elbow’s hyper-mobility, which can attain 18 degrees of hyper-extension and 22 degrees of abduction. These angles were measured using standard anthropometric techniques. The hyper-mobility in Mr Akhtar’s joint was also reported by Mr Rhidian Thomasan, Orthopedic and Trauma Specialist in the United Kingdom.
v) Any time that Mr Akhtar rotates his bowling arm at near maximum speed, his forearm hyper-mobility will allow the elbow joint be forced into hyperextension. Subsequently, his forearm will also not form a straight line with the upperarm, like most bowlers, because of the abduction and hyperextension of the forearm at the elbow. No amount of practice or technique training can modify these two anatomical characteristics.
It is therefore clear that Mr Akhtar does not throw the ball, but bowls it with an arm that exhibits these two abnormal characteristics. We accept that umpires should at first be concerned about his action, however, after receiving the scientific data included in the report should be completely satisfied that he is not attempting to throw the ball. These data have been further supported by independent assessment from an English orthopedic surgeon. We therefore believe that Mr Akhtar should be permitted to bowl for Pakistan without further concern as to his action.The Pakistani selectors have included Shoaib Akhtar in the 16-member squad to visit Bangladesh for a short two-Test rubber against minnows Bangladesh. It is a daring step, considering that Shoaib has already been reported twice in less than a year. And if he is reported again, according to the ICC rules he would be automatically banned for a year. That could seriously harm the already much-chequered career of the dashing fast bowler who has barely worked his way back to full fitness.
Shoaib Akhtar
Photo © CricInfo
Maybe the PCB felt emboldened after the Indian Board’s belligerent stance over the Sehwag affair forced the ICC into a compromise. Or perhaps the latest report from the University of Western Australia, reconfirming its position, has given the Board the confidence to dare the ICC to take precipitate action against Shoaib, and then face the consequences.The point to note here is that the PCB already had spurned, with unconcealed disdain, the ICC’s offer for correction measures, with Michael Holding standing watch. Some noises were even made to support Shoaib if he wished to sue the ICC for unfair treatment, even before Dalmiya’s histrionics and the University of Western Australia standing by its earlier verdict.
The argument for shunning Stage Two (the corrective measures) is that Shoaib action ‘cannot be modified’ due to excessive extension at at the forearm and the elbow joint.Logical course:Logically, the PCB perhaps already had a certain course of action in mind. Convinced that its stance was beyond reproach, and also that it had substantive evidence to have Shoaib acquitted for good, the PCB has decided to throw Akhtar in at the deep end to see whether the situation deteriorates further before the ICC Executive Board meeting in March. If it doesn’t, it would strengthen the hands of the PCB. If it does, and Shoaib is called again, the bull had to be taken by the horns in any case.In any event, the logical course is to get the issue resolved once and for all. A precedent exists in Muttiah Muralitharan who, once cleared, has not been hounded by umpires and referees around the world. Darrel Hair, the Aussie umpire who has questioned the actions of more than one Asian bowler, still thinks Murali’s action is “diabolical”. But despite penning such thoughts in his autobiography, he has desisted from raising a finger again. Meanwhile Murali has been allowed to ply his trade in peace, bagging a huge load of wickets at such a fabulous strike rate that he is likely to become the greatest spin bowler in game’s history.Double-standards: What has really been strange is the ICC’s attitude. The same evidence – the University of Western Australia’s opinion that an anatomical disorder made the bowler’s action seem illegal – which was enough to clear Muralitharan, is not being entertained in the case of Shoaib. It is a case of double standards, and is raising the hackles of PCB officials, making Chairman Lt Gen Tauqir Zia say in public that if Shoaib should want to sue the ICC, he would have the Board’s support.The Board has subsequently softened its rhetoric, not mentioning civil suits and court cases, but the issue will be up for discussion in the ICC Executive Board meeting in March. And it might be debated as heatedly as the Denness affair.The latest report (available with this scribe) of the three most authoritative voices of the University of Western Australia’s Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science on Shoaib Akhtar’s bowling reconfirms the conclusion reached in March this year. Both the earlier and the latest reports are with the ICC. But whether these will get Shoaib any permanent reprieve from the world body is a point of conjecture. This doubt and speculation is because the ICC, instead of opting for a logical course, has so far chosen to remain on the side of ambiguity while deciding on the issue. The sooner it decides to eschew from this policy the better it would for Shoaib, one of the few draw cards with the capacity to fill a stadium anywhere in the world, and for the game.