The Flipper vs The Doosra

[odyssey]

Which ball would be harder to face?
Most dangerous?
Most effective?

 

[steds]

Well, it all depends, doesn't it?

 

[shaka]

I havent seen much of the doosra, so I would say that in the past, the flipper has been more lethal (when in the right spot).

 

[Langeveldt]

Isn't that like saying, "Who's better, Warne or Murali"?

**Runs and hides**

 

[a massive zebra]

Warne seems reluctant to bowl his flipper now, but between 1993-95 it was deadly. The doosra has been more effective because when Murali was allowed to bowl it against England last year he had a far more devastating series than Warne has ever had against anyone. In Murali's previous series against England he had been neutralised to a degree but this new invention proved irresistable and made all the difference.

Which ball would be harder to face?
Most dangerous?
Most effective?

Whats the difference? It all depends on how well the delivery is bowled. To say a flipper is more dangerous than a doosra is like saying leg spin is more dangerous than off spin.

Isn't that like saying, "Who's better, Warne or Murali"?

**Runs and hides**

No it is not, they both have far more in their armoury than just a flipper or a doosra.

 

[vic_orthdox]

flipper - only because at its best, it was nigh impossible to pick, and there was no way to stop it, while the doosra (haven't seen it all that often, i must admit) is good, it doesnt have the psychological effect on the batsman that the flipper had

 

[Jono]

Kind of a silly question.

I mean, a flipper short and outside off stump wouldn't be too deadly would it? Neither would a doosra off the pitch.

 

[deeps]

i'd have to say the flipper is a much more dangerous delivery from a batsman's point of view. a doosra gives you that extra millisecond of thought, because it doesn't skid as much as the flipper. also, if you are watching the ball well, the doosra can be easier to play, but the flipper will cut up the best defence.

 

[Slats4ever]

Flipper cos it's bowled by one SK WARNE

 

[SJS]

Which ball would be harder to face?
Most dangerous?
Most effective?

The one you cant spot is the dangerous one. It could be one or the other or both or neither

 

[Buddhmaster]

I doubt i'd have any chance of getting even remotely close to either of them.

 

[SJS]

I doubt i'd have any chance of getting even remotely close to either of them.

Then both are equaly dangerous

 

[SquidAU]

I doubt i'd have any chance of getting even remotely close to either of them.

Yep. But the flipper looks more scarey to me. If I saw that, I'd prolly scream and try a swat at it with the bat!

 

[vic_orthdox]

what would concern me most about the flipper is that if delivered well, there is no way of stopping it, its nigh-impossible to pick, but the doosra can be read off the pitch if you have to, and because of its nature (me being a RH batsman) would be less likely to get me out, as i'd end up playing well inside of it expecting it to turn inwards

 

[Bapu Rao Swami]

I would say the flipper. Its fiendishly difficult to bowl..Benaud once said it took him four years before he had the confidence to use it in a match.

A flipper is basically like a chopped backhand in tennis, while the batsmen lays back to cut, thinking the ball is a long hop. But then it bounces, scuttles, pinning him on the ankle or sneaking under the bat and rattling into the base of the stumps.

Its akin to being your 'yorker' from a spin bowler. so I'd say a flipper is harder to face.