Giles or Tufnell, who do you think was a better slow left arm spin bowler?

[Richard]

Now I'm coming at this as a total layman (my degree is in Philosophy & Sociology, so zero scientific background for me to draw on!!), but 86 revs a sec sounds way too high. That's over 5000 per minute! Some car engines don't manage that!!

Can a human hand really do that?!? I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curious.

Think of what would happen if a cricket ball spun for a minute.
Incidentally - obviously it's not 86 per second, that's just Swervy getting it way off course. Just think how fast something would be spinning for it to go around 86 times in a second.

 

[Richard]

That guy is so far out he's in danger of banging his head against that new planet thingie.

Funny that he's seeing 100Hz movements on a 25Hz or 75Hz film...clearly he's never heard of the "sampling freuqency must exceed twice the signal frequency" rule

Yes, I have, that's part of the basic As-level course.

 

[Steulen]

Yes, I have, that's part of the basic As-level course.

So you've heard of it but don't think there's any need to use it?

 

[C_C]

No, he wasn't - he and Giles (and Kumble too) were both effective at Motera due to the fact that they turned it then, and none of the three were effective at Bangalore because it wasn't turning (Sarandeep was effective, but because of poor strokes not the turning ball)

Irrelevant.
We arnt talking effectiveness here. We are talking the degree of spin.
Spinning it doesnt automatically mean successful.
Warne spins it a mile on practically any surface-atleast more than most other spinners- but he has come in for stick every now and then...doesnt imply that he just stopped spinning when he got stick.
I watched that series live and Harbhajan was consistently spinning it more than Giles.

And he'd not have gone so badly downhill if he'd still turned the ball, because turn can be effective without loop and flight.

having watched videos of Gibbs, i am TELLING you what happened, not just conjencture from your part.
Gibbs could spin it a mile even during the very last days of his career. He lost a bit of accuracy ( and economy rate is irrelevant, because batting against spinners were different back then- they had a different philosophy) and lost his loop totally.
That was his downfall, not the fact that he stopped spinning it.

Err, no, height doesn't neccessarily come into it, it's about build.
And obviously there are small differences, but any difference that would influence how much the ball can be spun with the fingers would be of freakish proportions (eg the fitting of a hand into a palm).

I quoted height because most human beings are proportionally made when it comes to limbs and a 6 foot guy almost always has hands that are a few centimetres larger than a 5 and half foot dude's.

It'd be interesting to see exactly what your Uncle (if he is even as you say he is) would say exactly on the matter - of course we'll never know for certain.

I have conveyed to you what he thought on the matter and like i said, he happens to be a doctor. So unless you wish to call me a liar ( and that wont get us anywhere else), know when to shut up and retract yer statement.
you got this attitude that even if Einstien told you that you were wrong in quantum electrodynamics, you'd still dispute it.

 

[C_C]

Yes, I have, that's part of the basic As-level course.

Then you'd know that you cannot derive 80 revs/s from a reel that is 75 fps.

 

[Swervy]

Think of what would happen if a cricket ball spun for a minute.
Incidentally - obviously it's not 86 per second, that's just Swervy getting it way off course. Just think how fast something would be spinning for it to go around 86 times in a second.

well you have said figures in the order of 80 or 90 for some spinners...I just failed to remember from a year ago that Giles was 30 odd.

But still the figures are irrelevent due to you measuring techniques

 

[C_C]

You'd think that a dude with A-level physics would listen to people who are 3rd year engineering students or have degrees in instrumentation when it comes to uncertainty analysis but nooooooooo. Rich knows better!

And yes, every measurement is inaccurate in theory, ie, no measurement is absolute. But there is a difference between 'Atlantic ocean is 6454 miles wide at its widest point, give or take half a mile' and ' Atlantic ocean is 6500 miles wide at its widest point, give or take the length of England' !

 

[Swervy]

You'd think that a dude with A-level physics would listen to people who are 3rd year engineering students or have degrees in instrumentation when it comes to uncertainty analysis but nooooooooo. Rich knows better!

well yeah you would think that would be the case...but Richard is an anomoly relative to everyone else isnt he.

Richard, it takes guts to admit you are wrong, but if you do so here and now, you will gain a bit of respect here I am sure..people might actually start to take you a bit more seriously then..please take this opportunity to save yourself from become more of a joke

 

[Steulen]

"Giles is typically 38 (Croft 36) and Murali, believe it or not, is 84. Mushtaq is 95, Warne 82. I would suspect that MacGill will be over 100.
And I've just watched Dave Mohammad again for the first time in 6 months and I'll be surprised if he's not in the 80s at least.
Remember, though, I've only done this on an average of 6 deliveries, there could be many hidden secrets to discover yet."

A quote from you, Richard. Page 8 of the "Who has a better Test attack?" thread that started this little piece of discussion. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8914&page=8&pp=15&highlight=revs, if you want to see for yourself.

 

[Richard]

Irrelevant.
We arnt talking effectiveness here. We are talking the degree of spin.
Spinning it doesnt automatically mean successful.
Warne spins it a mile on practically any surface-atleast more than most other spinners- but he has come in for stick every now and then...doesnt imply that he just stopped spinning when he got stick.
I watched that series live and Harbhajan was consistently spinning it more than Giles.

I watched it live, too, and believe it or not all 3 bowlers turned it at Motera and none of them turned it at Bangalore - and nor did Sarandeep.
Spinning it doesn't automatically mean successful, no, but not spinning it does almost certainly mean not successful.

having watched videos of Gibbs, i am TELLING you what happened, not just conjencture from your part.

Oh, I've watched videos of Gibbs too, and I've heard people describe what happened with him too.

Gibbs could spin it a mile even during the very last days of his career. He lost a bit of accuracy ( and economy rate is irrelevant, because batting against spinners were different back then- they had a different philosophy) and lost his loop totally.
That was his downfall, not the fact that he stopped spinning it.

Good, good - still couldn't spin it far on unhelpful pitches though.

I quoted height because most human beings are proportionally made when it comes to limbs and a 6 foot guy almost always has hands that are a few centimetres larger than a 5 and half foot dude's.

Yes and no.
There's no point quoting height when you can quote something far more explicit and relevant - palm size.

I have conveyed to you what he thought on the matter and like i said, he happens to be a doctor. So unless you wish to call me a liar ( and that wont get us anywhere else), know when to shut up and retract yer statement.

You being a liar is a possibility - you misunderstanding (possibly deliberately) what you've been told is another.
Because it flies completely in the face of what I've been told and I'm willing to trust my sources above you and yours.

you got this attitude that even if Einstien told you that you were wrong in quantum electrodynamics, you'd still dispute it.

Nope.

 

[Richard]

well yeah you would think that would be the case...but Richard is an anomoly relative to everyone else isnt he.

Richard, it takes guts to admit you are wrong, but if you do so here and now, you will gain a bit of respect here I am sure..people might actually start to take you a bit more seriously then..please take this opportunity to save yourself from become more of a joke

Nope, it won't, admitting I'm wrong won't make anyone respect me any more.
I'll say again what I said then - try doing the thing yourself, instead of misunderstanding what you think you're reading.
Of course, qualified guys like you might get a bit more notice (not least from yourselves) than myself.

 

[Swervy]

Nope, it won't, admitting I'm wrong won't make anyone respect me any more.
I'll say again what I said then - try doing the thing yourself, instead of misunderstanding what you think you're reading.
Of course, qualified guys like you might get a bit more notice (not least from yourselves) than myself.

ok..you have said that you have , from your TV screen, watched recordings on 75fps video and counted, using marks on the ball, the number of revolutions the ball has made.

Now at one point you said you used some sort of software for this..then I got the impression you didnt.

Sorry what is there to not understand?

I wont try it out because i know that its a waste of time, the figure you will get by your method witll not be accuarte in the slightest

 

[C_C]

I watched it live, too, and believe it or not all 3 bowlers turned it at Motera and none of them turned it at Bangalore - and nor did Sarandeep.
Spinning it doesn't automatically mean successful, no, but not spinning it does almost certainly mean not successful.

You were clearly watching a different game than the rest of us.
And no, not spinning it doesnt mean not successful- Kumble is pretty damn successful and he hardly spins it.
Clarrie Grimmett hardly spun the ball and he was one of the most successful spinners in cricket's history.

Oh, I've watched videos of Gibbs too, and I've heard people describe what happened with him too.

You have ?
Yet you claimed not so long ago that "
But he did get older and presumably spun the ball less.", indicating that you have seen very little of him. For if you have seen him, there is nothing to 'presume'.

There's no point quoting height when you can quote something far more explicit and relevant - palm size.

True, but you'll find that height to limb size correlates pretty linearly.

You being a liar is a possibility - you misunderstanding (possibly deliberately) what you've been told is another.
Because it flies completely in the face of what I've been told and I'm willing to trust my sources above you and yours.

Lets not go into the 'liar' domain, since none of us here can explicitly prove our sources. Even if we could get a world renowned doctor to post here, one could claim that he isnt who he claims to be.
And if it flies in the face of what you've been told about the human eye, you should re-consider your sources, for like i said, my sources are impeccable in this category.

Nope.

Allright then. I am no einstien, but i am almost a fully qualified engineer and i think i have far more knowledge in proper analytical methods than you do. Therefore, it would be consistent for you to admit that your method of determining spin imparted to the ball is ridiculously inaccurate.

try doing the thing yourself, instead of misunderstanding what you think you're reading.

No misunderstanding from my part. I did read all your posts on the matter. You tried to determine the revs/s count of a delivery from simple television screen and that is as accurate as sticking a ruler in front of your eye to measure the moon's diameter.
You cannot get a revs/s count higher than the fps and given that you said your sources (tv) has 25-75 fps, any count of 75+ revs/s is impossible...ie, you counted wrong, not to mention, highly inaccurately.

 

[Richard]

ok..you have said that you have , from your TV screen, watched recordings on 75fps video and counted, using marks on the ball, the number of revolutions the ball has made.

Now at one point you said you used some sort of software for this..then I got the impression you didnt.

Sorry what is there to not understand?

I wont try it out because i know that its a waste of time, the figure you will get by your method witll not be accuarte in the slightest

So you won't try it because you've already decided it's a waste of time.
How constructive...

 

[C_C]

So you won't try it because you've already decided it's a waste of time.
How constructive...

Indeed. Not wasting your time is by contradiction, doing something relatively more constructive.
its like someone telling me 'you wont try it because you've already decieded its a waste of time...how constructive' when i tell them that i am NOT going to try and determine the moon's diameter by merely sticking a ruler in front of my eye on a full moon night.

 

[Swervy]

So you won't try it because you've already decided it's a waste of time.
How constructive...

I could trying building a car that could drive to Alpha Centauri..but I decide not to becuase I am aware that its a waste of time.....you may feel that isnt constructive, however I feel that I can spend my time more constructivly elsewhere and not on an experiment which is fundamentally flawed to the extreme

 

[Richard]

You were clearly watching a different game than the rest of us.
And no, not spinning it doesnt mean not successful- Kumble is pretty damn successful and he hardly spins it.
Clarrie Grimmett hardly spun the ball and he was one of the most successful spinners in cricket's history.

Never seen Grimmett so I don't know about that.
Kumble mightn't spin the ball sideways all that much but he bowls with plenty of topspin. No coincidence, of course, that Kumble has only ever been successful before the last year and a bit on helpful pitches.

You have ?
Yet you claimed not so long ago that "But he did get older and presumably spun the ball less.", indicating that you have seen very little of him. For if you have seen him, there is nothing to 'presume'.

I've seen him - whether I've seen as much of him as you I can't know.
It's not impossible that he spun the ball less as he got older, nor that he lost his ability with flight, nor that he got less accurate.
What's probable, as often, is a combination of the three.

True, but you'll find that height to limb size correlates pretty linearly.

Pretty - but there's no need to use something which is a fairly accurate indication of something else when you can use the exact thing you're trying to get an indication of.

Lets not go into the 'liar' domain, since none of us here can explicitly prove our sources. Even if we could get a world renowned doctor to post here, one could claim that he isnt who he claims to be.
And if it flies in the face of what you've been told about the human eye, you should re-consider your sources, for like i said, my sources are impeccable in this category.

And mine aren't?

Allright then. I am no einstien, but i am almost a fully qualified engineer and i think i have far more knowledge in proper analytical methods than you do. Therefore, it would be consistent for you to admit that your method of determining spin imparted to the ball is ridiculously inaccurate.

I'd like you to try and do something along the lines, using your professional expertise, as it would doubtless be taken more seriously.

No misunderstanding from my part. I did read all your posts on the matter. You tried to determine the revs/s count of a delivery from simple television screen and that is as accurate as sticking a ruler in front of your eye to measure the moon's diameter.
You cannot get a revs/s count higher than the fps and given that you said your sources (tv) has 25-75 fps, any count of 75+ revs/s is impossible...ie, you counted wrong, not to mention, highly inaccurately.

Has it not occurred to you that all those measurements were on the high side?

 

[Richard]

I could trying building a car that could drive to Alpha Centauri..but I decide not to becuase I am aware that its a waste of time.....you may feel that isnt constructive, however I feel that I can spend my time more constructivly elsewhere and not on an experiment which is fundamentally flawed to the extreme

Believe it or not there is a slight difference.

 

[Steulen]

So you won't try it because you've already decided it's a waste of time.
How constructive...

No, nothing to do with being constructive. Your measurement technique violates the one big law of signal measurement and is therefore objectively a complete waste of time.

It's like telling NASA to swap their rockets for rowing boats. No-one's ever tried to get to the moon in a rowing boat, so how do you know it's a waste of time?

 

[Swervy]

Has it not occurred to you that all those measurements were on the high side?

what..so you got it wrong then?