Two months ago I wrote a column about Pakistan's Saeed Ajmal, lauding his exploits in 2011. I toyed with the notion of questioning his sudden rise up the ranks, but decided it would be a more benign column if I refrained. I'm not in a benign mood this evening.

Last week Ajmal ripped through England on the opening day of the first test in Dubai, claiming 7/55 - career-best figures - to help dismiss the tourists for 192. He finished the match with figures of 10/97 and, more importantly, Pakistan claimed a ten-wicket victory.

The English batsmen were bamboozled by Ajmal's subtle variations. All the pre-match hype surrounding his so-called ‘teesra' amounted to little. It was his ‘doosra' that teased his opponents the most. Ian Bell was dismissed by the delivery in both innings.

Following Ajmal's success on day one, former English captain Bob Willis questioned the legality of Ajmal's most lethal delivery. "The delivery I have a problem with is the doosra," said Willis.  "The ICC have accommodated this delivery; they have changed the rules to allow these bowlers to bend their elbow 15 degrees."

Willis' sentiment was expounded by several still images of Ajmal that appeared in the British press. The images showed the Pakistani off-spinner with his right elbow cocked during his delivery stride, just prior to the point of release.

The images reminded me of a photograph of Muttiah Muralitharan that adorns the wall of Melbourne's Etihad Stadium. While the photo is displayed under the guise of acknowledging a true legend of the game, it's impossible to ignore the ‘elephant' within it.

As far as cricket is concerned, it's a prosperous time to explore elephants.

I was at the MCG in 1995 when umpire Darrell Hair called Muralitharan for throwing seven times in three overs. Hair was adamant that Murali was bending his arm and then straightening it during the process of his delivery. Whatever one thinks of Hair as an umpire or a person, it took what the Spanish call cojones for him to take such a stance.

I was only a kid then, but I could sense from the murmurings permeating through the Southern Stand that something monumental was taking place (the only time I've heard a similar sound was in the dying seconds of the drawn AFL Grand Final in 2010).

I've since wondered whether Hair took the stance he did because he had an inkling of the success that Murali was going to have as a cricketer. Maybe, just maybe, he thought it might be detrimental to the game in the long run. Of course, it's far easier to label Hair a bigot.

Statistically, Muralitharan is the greatest bowler to ever play the game. He collected 800 test wickets at an average of 22.72 and 534 one-day wickets at 23.08. Both records are likely to stand until cyborgs take to the cricket field.

Murali's a lovely bloke with an infectious smile, supple wrists and a great cricket brain. There's nothing sinister about him. It's commonly believed that a deformed elbow prevented him from bowling with a straight arm. So is he a genetic gift or a charlatan?

Regardless of how one views Murali, it's impossible to ignore the fact that he was very good at what he did. We need only look at Sri Lanka's dismal test results since his retirement in 2010 (one victory in 18 months) to understand how good he was.

Still, I prefer Shane Warne.

Sure, he's probably a despicable person. I can distinctly remember him refusing to sign my autograph book at a Shield match in 1993 and laughing in the face of my protestations. Sure, he's brought the game into disrepute off the field on countless occasions. But at least the game is unequivocally better for his exploits on the field.

Can the same be said for Murali?

In 2005 the ICC amended the limits that applied to the actions of spin bowlers, changing the elbow extension maximum from five to 15 degrees. And thus Pandora opened the jar...

All power to Saeed Ajmal. He's using every sliver of the 15 degrees allotted to him. He's reached the pinnacle of his vocation. He's not breaking any rules. He's merely exploiting them just like, say, Trevor Chappell.

Perhaps this might be perceived as sour grapes coming from an Australian who's been starved of quality spin bowling in recent years?

Perhaps Australian cricket has suffered because coaches don't actively encourage young spinners to utilise their 15 degrees?

Perhaps all truly great art polarises opinion? I wish I could ask Salman Rushdie what he thinks of the ‘doosra' and the ‘teesra'. He'd probably think I was trying to seduce him.

I was participating in a year-seven science class last year and I discovered an image of Murali in a textbook. He was covered in white optic reflective markers. The photograph was taken at the University of Western Australia in 2004 while his action was being subjected to biomechanical analysis.

The teacher explained the case study and attempted to impersonate Murali's bowling action to the class. They laughed. Then one of the less cooperative students yelled out, "But why did they change the rules of the game just to suit one man?"

And that isn't a question that any teacher can answer.