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

[Swervy]

Believe it or not there is a slight difference.

to those of us in the know (ie not you) there isnt the slightest bit of difference

 

[Swervy]

Richard..just let it go..you are getting soundly thrashed here from all sides..i hate to see a man who is already down getting a serious kicking..just walk away

 

[C_C]

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.

Kumble doesnt only pick up wickets with his topspinner.....And Kumble has been pretty successful in the subcontinent as a whole......and surely you arnt gonna claim that ALL subcontinental pitches are helpful to spinners.

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.

I saw tapes of him from near the end of his career and he was spinning it pretty much the same.
But his loop was gone and he was no longer drawing the batsmen into false strokes.

And mine aren't?

Dont think so.
If your sorce says that m = Fa, then your source is wrong. Period. Likewise applies here.

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

Put it simply, i can do an experiment to determine how much spin an average human imparts to the ball. But i cannot do an experiment involving international bowlers, not without a lotta trouble.
For measuring it from the tv screen is wildly inaccurate and total garbage.
The only way you can do it is to line up the entire net with photogates and speedometers, put a lil tag on the ball and ask the various bowlers to unleash a few deliveries.

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

They may be on the high side or the low side. That is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the experiment you undertook has very little accuracy in it- your margin of error is almost as big as the numbers you quoted, if not bigger.
Its like saying 'Swervy (sorry Swervy ) weighs 200 tonnes'.....yes, its on the high side but by such a ridiculous degree that it is laughable.
Not to mention, your error rate is totally unknown and no measurement is valid without an error -rate. Its like saying 'my weenie is 8 inches long, plus/minus X inches', where X could be anywhere from 0.000000000001 inch to 1 mile.

 

[Swervy]

They may be on the high side or the low side. That is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the experiment you undertook has very little accuracy in it- your margin of error is almost as big as the numbers you quoted, if not bigger.
Its like saying 'Swervy (sorry Swervy ) weighs 200 tonnes'.....yes, its on the high side but by such a ridiculous degree that it is laughable.Not to mention, your error rate is totally unknown and no measurement is valid without an error -rate. Its like saying 'my weenie is 8 inches long, plus/minus X inches', where X could be anywhere from 0.000000000001 inch to 1 mile.

that is actually more accurate than these rev/sec figures

 

[marc71178]

I once hasd a similar experience with 'shrooms, when I was in possession of a miniture pink elephant who I introduced to everyone at the party, it fit snuggly in the palm of my hand, ...the strangest bit was that everyone else saw him as well

I know this is crazily off topic but my friend once had to use the public toliets in a park..unfortunately under the influence of aforementioned fungus...he quickly left those toilets when,whilst emptying his bladder, he looked up and saw a small black box hovering in the air. The black box identified itself a the motivation behind child abuse. I actually watched my friend leave the toilet block, and as he walked towards me at the other side of the park, he was visibly staggering,so scared that he was.


now back to the cricket......

Bah, I can beat all those.

Last time I got that high I read something of Richard's and it made sense.

 

[marc71178]

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

When it's something that so clearly is so flawed, then it is a waste o time to try it.

 

[C_C]

Bah, I can beat all those.

Last time I got that high I read something of Richard's and it made sense.

Okay.
You win.
Hands down.

 

[social]

His spin comes from his wrists, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dunce of the highest order.

So virtually every batsmen ever to play against Murali are dunces whilst a 3rd reserve for the 8th X1 of a back of nowhere Yorkshire team is a genius.

 

[social]

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.
.

Firstly, Gibbs relied more on flight than spin.

Secondly, spin without loop is next to useless.