Flintoff's action

[Richard]

Most pace bowlers have chucked over the years, according to ICC regulations.

no, all. Ramnaresh Sarwan isn't a seamer

The fact of the matter is, it's probable that all bowlers have chucked down the years.
If Ramnaresh Sarwan is capable of bowling with a die-straight elbow every delivery while no-one else is, I'll eat my computer. In fact I'll eat the Earth. It is not possible that Sarwan does something no-one else has ever done. Now I've not seen the full report, but I'd bet a bit that they never said they think he bowls every ball with a 180degree elbow - just that when they were really looking hard, he happened to.
It's almost certain that every bowler breaks the old ideals, so we have to set new ones.

 

[Richard]

There's probably some elbow joint movement in it, but if you look at anyone from enough camera angles you'll find movement.

And now we know why: because for most deliveries, there is some elbow movement.

 

[Richard]

I've barely ever seen Flintoff bowl (we don't have pay TV), but have heard a few people (P. Roebuck) questioning Flintoff's action, especially on his faster "effort ball". What are people's thougts on this ?

It's interesting - they did a little very-unscientific (that was Bumble's description of it) piece on Sky during some South Africa game.
They used 4 England bowlers and Ruchira Perera - who at Lord's in 2002 had an action as blatantly and consistently illegal as you'll ever see.
Harmison, Hoggard and someone else (can't remember who) had something like 2 or 3 degrees of what they could detect (with their on-screen lines and 20 fps cameras) flexation, something that's been found to be totally unnoticable to the human eye. Flintoff had something like 10 or 12 degrees flexation - reckoned to be just below the threshold where the human eye can detect it.
Perera at Lord's in 2002 (interestingly, he's bowled elsewhere - I've seen him bowl elsewhere - and there's been no problem) bowled with anything up to 28 degrees flexation, something very clearly visible.
I'd never noticed anything about Flintoff's action before this, but it clearly breaks the old ideals by a larger distance than most and goes pretty close to breaking the new ones if I understand correctly. I emphasise again, though: all this was done with relatively speaking very, very poor technology.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Whatever happened to that "ultramotion" camera (1000FPS IIRC) that Sky used on The Windies tour? That was a seriously impressive piece of technology. You could actually see the bats bow in contact with the ball.

I am surprised Fred's degree of flexion is that high, it would be interesting to compare his degree to someone with a more obviously (to the naked eye) dodgy looking action like Kirtley or Lawson.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Whatever happened to that "ultramotion" camera (1000FPS IIRC) that Sky used on The Windies tour? That was a seriously impressive piece of technology. You could actually see the bats bow in contact with the ball.

I am surprised Fred's degree of flexion is that high, it would be interesting to compare his degree to someone with a more obviously (to the naked eye) dodgy looking action like Kirtley or Lawson.

It will be in action come the Home series in England. Probably the SA host broadcaster hasnt bothered to invest in one.

 

[Richard]

Whatever happened to that "ultramotion" camera (1000FPS IIRC) that Sky used on The Windies tour? That was a seriously impressive piece of technology. You could actually see the bats bow in contact with the ball.

I am surprised Fred's degree of flexion is that high, it would be interesting to compare his degree to someone with a more obviously (to the naked eye) dodgy looking action like Kirtley or Lawson.

Lawson was confirmed to be more than dodgy.
Kirtley was confirmed to be exactly like Shoaib and simply have an action that looks odd despite being perfectly legal (compared to everyone else).
Certainly C4 were using a 1000FPS camera (in sufficient light conditions) of times last summer - haven't seen hide nor hair of it in South Africa.
Why the hell not I don't know - brilliant innovation.

 

[Richard]

It will be in action come the Home series in England. Probably the SA host broadcaster hasnt bothered to invest in one.

I think it was a Sky camera, nothing to do with the West Indies broadcasters. And it's the same thing in SA - Sky produce their own coverage, with their own cameras.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think it was a Sky camera, nothing to do with the West Indies broadcasters. And it's the same thing in SA - Sky produce their own coverage, with their own cameras.

Well maybe Sky broke it and cant afford another one or maybe they were scared it would get nicked in SA