Originally Posted by Migara
Now it shows what I've understood is correct. Swere = Drift which occurs with forward spin balls. Off spin, it's away from RH, leg spin, it's towards RH.
SJS>> I have seen enough top spinners from Kumble which used to be 115-120k early in his career (which was called the "rocket" ball), with gun barrel straight seam. Non has swung. I believe that swing is inly possible with backspin.
Originally Posted by Manee
Me too, for what it is worth, which isn't much, tbh.
I could name some international pacers who never swing the ball inspite of bowling with a straight seam. While many finger spinners will get side swerve away from the batsmen and some legspinners, including Warne himself, will get some inward drift with leg spin. Bradman writes of Mailey getting similar lateral movement.
Erect seam is important but not enough for getting the ball to swing or swerve which, by the way, are different though often used as synonyms.
The beauty of Barne's bowling was that with a straight armed action, a finger spun delivery, he managed to bowl a ball which swung in to the batsman (with the new ball) pitched perfectly and moved away after pitching.AND he could bowl a ball which swung out and one which broke back from the off after pitching.
The fact that others like O'Rielly who bowled with a high arm vicious action, were not able to bowl this delivery (nor has anyone else in the history of the game) is what makes Barnes such a great bowler.
The fact that Kumble does not get the ball to swerve does not prove that Barnes didn't do it unless we assume that all these players, who played with and against him, and who wrote about it were in a massive worldwide conspiracy to fabricate an enormous lie. By the way, Barnes did not have many friends amongst his contemporaries because of his aloof and 'haughty' nature. He wasn't a much loved cricketer. He was dropped at the flimsiest of pretexts and would have had hundreds of wickets had he played all the matches he should have - not that 189 in 27 Tests is to be considered less.
In any event, my idea is to present here what we know from the then contemporary accounts of what he bowled. Its important for us to understand what he did to understand why he is considered the greatest ever bowler by so many.
If we insist on denying it, I am okay with that. It makes no difference to me whatsoever