• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

To throw or not to throw: Woolmer on Shabbir

a10khan

School Boy/Girl Captain
Please excuse the Shakespearean pun, perhaps it might be better if I said “He throws, He doesn’t throw” as I blow on a dandelion seed pod or as I count the plum pips in my wife’s quite brilliant stewed plum recipe, tinker, tailor, soldier, thrower!

In 18 months with the Pakistan cricket team, one of the many issues I have been confronted with is the throwing question. Pakistan has had 5 bowlers reported and associated with throwing. Shabbir the subject of this article, Shoaib Akhtar (cleared because of a mobile elbow joint), Shoaib Malik (Off-spin), Shahid Afridi (Quicker ball/off-spinner) and Mohammed Hafeez (off-spinner).

In addition it is suspected that 29 more domestic first class players have suspect actions. This has prompted the Pakistan Cricket Board to set up a bio-mechanics laboratory with the latest high speed cameras in order to test these bowlers and save them from the chop.

The fact that there are so many in Pakistan and possibly other areas of the sub-continent is cause for concern, the reasons are simple – no formalised coaching at a young age and copying the superstars on television.

Yet there is a criminal ignorance of the understanding of the bowling action and a throwing action. Some will have studied the problem more than others and let me be frank here when trying to put “chuckers” right, there is little if any methodology to do so, trust me I have experience, when working with Shabbir for 6 weeks before he was sent to Australia to be cleared (again!) within weeks he is out of the game because the Umpires cannot agree with the scientists? I am looking forward to studying the report that has made the scientists change their mind.

As a cricket coach seeing something wrong is the easy part dealing with it and putting it right is not only the key to coaching but sometimes a thankless task, there is no text book to put him right, there is no documented evidence as to how we should put him right practically. There are of course a great many theories, but in practice there is nothing. From start to finish it is a suck it and see science!

For example by using the science of Bio Mechanics Shabbir Ahmed’s action probably started when he began bowling as a youngster, no formal coaching, and he therefore grew up with a bent front knee on delivery and a closed initial part of the action at the crease, which in turn caused a bend in his bowling arm as he came through the horizontal part of his action.

The effort that he makes then in order gain extra height on delivery is what causes the fuss and the greater degree of straightening has caused his banning. This can happen at any time while bowling a bouncer (quickly) a slower ball (slowly) or normal pace. Shabbir’s pace varies from 116 kph (Slower ball) to 135/7 quicker ball or effort ball although his bouncer sometimes came out at 127kph! I guess there has to be a margin of error in the speed gun readings as well.


The key to his action is that the straighter the front knee the straighter the bowling arm! This in itself is not surprising as the bio-mechanics (scientists of body movement) advocate this as a way of repairing Shabbir, one I concur completely and so does Shabbir. The reality is that the arm straightens to full extension when he delivers the ball and his knee is straight, ironic that he cannot attain the straight knee and arm earlier in his action. This is because when young he was unable to co-ordinate himself properly for whatever reason when he began bowling. He is tall so he might have been growing when he started learning and the body does not co-ordinate well during growth periods. I am only hypothesising as I do not have information as to when he started ad how much he was growing at that time.

During Shabbir’s recent rehabilitation we worked together for six weeks, working in the specific areas of knee bend arm bend. In fact off a three step run up Shabbir’s action was markedly better than off his long run. Intriguingly (for me as there is no text book) I used a piece of cotton to get his arm straight tying a noose around his middle finger and then joining it to his shirt by the shoulder and making sure that the string was tight while his arm was straight. The theory being that if he bent his arm the string would go slack. Mentally he had to keep the string tight and all would be all well (we hoped). Indeed we had remarkable success using this method in a very short time!

By the end of six weeks I felt he was ready to be filmed again in the bio mechanics lab we were using digital cameras which give you up to 50 frames a second on camera he looked great a huge improvement and in comparison his arm looked locked (Straight) all the way round. I also asked Aleem Dar Pakistan umpire on the Elite panel and he agreed with me that there was no visible evidence of Shabbir chucking/throwing in fact his words were “His action looks fine!”

He was then sent to Australia and checked by the bio-mechanics lab who after filming him with cameras at 250 frames per second actually cleared Shabbir and the ICC said he could return to the playing field. Under the proviso that he could be called again!

When the England tour started Shabbir was ready for play, I then asked, prior to the first test Match in Multan both Umpires that were standing in that game came down and watched him bowl, both were satisfied with his action, although they said that we would like to see him when he is tired!

Indeed the Umpires when reporting him said that they felt Shabbir was fine for the first two spells and only on day three did they feel that his arm exceeded the 15 degree limit.

Here I need to ask how any human being can tell when an arm extends past 15 degrees – The 15 degree limit was instituted because it was felt that over 15 degree it was possible for the human eye to pick up a difference. Indeed Umpires are urged to only report players if they have a problem with the naked eye? Having received the report from the Umpires where I was informed that 7 balls had been queried, I immediately took those 7 balls onto my Quintic bio mechanic analysis programme and married the balls selected to the balls bowled in the first two spells, which if you remember or are even bothering to follow now) were observed as being clear!

There was no noticeable differences between the two comparisons at 50 frames per second and indeed frame by frame. There may well have been some doubt in the Umpires mind and indeed on camera the arm is not straight throughout the action but 15 degrees – who knows with the naked eye at full speed. Even at 15 frames per second the degree of angle is impossible to gauge.

Historically and since round arm bowling changed to over arm bowling in the late 1800’s there has never been a definition of a bowl, it is assumed that the arm must be straight throughout the action from the hip to delivery.

When I coach bowling to seven year olds I try to get them to visualise that the bowling arm and the hand holding the ball trace the circumference of a large wheel or coin, bowling coaches will tell you to extend the arm as it reaches the back hip turn the wrist so the ball faces backwards and then bring the arm over to deliver with the bowling arm kept straight. The fact is that a lot of other movements are happening to the body which will and can affect how eventually the ball is delivered is not necessary to discuss here.

Bowling is a complex subject and any action will depend on the maturity and co-ordination levels of the individual. Paul Adams is a prime example of a child desperate to bowl and making things work differently. :laugh: Incidentally he never straightened his arm. Muralitharran never straightens his arm; Shoaib Malik has a small piece of bone in his elbow joint that prevents him from straightening his arm.

These are just a few examples in a myriad of actions. The conundrum is how do we tell if a guy is throwing the ball, there is no definition or is there? A baseball pitcher throws the ball some in excess of 100 miles per hour but only just only a few (handful) bowlers have broken the 100mph mark. What then makes throwing dangerous? It becomes physically frightening when a bowler operates from 120kph to 158 kph while throwing because the action changes and the batsman is unable to see the ball because of the change in height of the delivery, unless he is concentrating hard. There is a noticeable difference try it yourself even 70pkh to 100 makes a huge difference. A batsman can get used to one pace and it is difficult to adjust.

Too many slower balls gives the game away, if a leg spinner constantly bowls a googly the batsman will eventually read it. The secret of bowling at International level is to be able to constantly change pace so that the batter never can settle.

In other sports it is the deception that causes problems, in soccer dummying left and going right, In Hockey and Rugby there are great examples of deception. This makes the difference. Throwing quickly does make a difference.

It can be argued and it is a solid argument that when pitches were allowed to be covered throughout the whole game, that the game favoured the batsman. Therefore Bowlers had to find alternative methods to deceive the batsmen.

Cricket and in general life shows that as human beings we have to adapt to survive. A bowler who doesn’t take wickets will get dropped; a batsman who doesn’t get runs will be dropped. It is all about the bottom line (results). Consider too that batsmen wear helmets and well designed protective equipment, the bowler who dealt in intimidation took more wickets than most.

An example of intimidation is the powerful West Indies side of the late 70’s and 80’s they had four of the world’s fastest and most intimidating bowlers in world cricket and they literally battered teams to defeat. It was the toughest time; so tough that legislation was bought in to temper this type of bowling.

Another example would be England’s captain Douglas Jardine who conceived the tactic of body line to bombard the Australians and particularly Bradman into submission in 1936, the tactic so incensed the Australians that diplomatic relations between the two countries nearly ceased.

Watching Harold Larwood bowl on the old black and white movies it is possible to ask the question did Larwood gain extra pace by bending his arm. The scientists might well have said yes as they did in the case presented to the ICC bowling review panel.

Allan Donald whose action looked as pure as the driven snow was labelled to have flexed his elbow in delivery. Fast bowling is physically dangerous, get hit on the head (without a helmet) and try and get back in the middle. My own experience here was interesting. I was hit (my own fault) by Malcolm Marshall on the right cheek it cracked the eye socket and I was out for 6 weeks.

Coming back and facing a moderately fast bowler from Gloucestershire was unnerving, doubts were in my mind I had to fight like crazy to get my confidence back. It was hard work to re-establish the confidence of before when I had felt totally invulnerable to the faster bowlers.

The effect that massive changes of pace have on a batsman when a bowler suddenly throws the ball can be mind blowing. Yet in reviewing the case of Shabbir Ahmed there is no such massive change of pace in fact he averages 127-134 kph. His action does not resemble a baseball player but he does straighten his arm. Studying him and working with him, I believe that he actually never throws the ball. I have watched him throw in the outfield the action is totally dissimilar and I believe that like many players he is a victim of a poor grounding and a muddled law.

He has expressed great disappointment, I feel for him. I do not believe that he throws but I do believe that his action is flawed by pure standards. Just as a batsman might have a flaw in technique but is still successful.

I believe that a working party of coaches, scientists and Umpires should re-look at cricket’s most thorny issue. Are we seeing the next major change in the game, will we allow Bowlers to throw and confine run ups. Will we lengthen the pitch dimensions to cater for the extra pace? Or do we define the difference between a throw and a bowl or insist on the arm being straight from hip to delivery 180 degrees of movement with a straight arm? This is the question that cricket faces NOW!

Having worked with many bowlers from 6 years of age to maturity one thing I have learnt and it is expressed by many coaches in many fields the most absorbent years for knowledge come from 6/7-15 years of age after that the individual will have to very open minded to be able to change, plus any change he makes will take longer to remain in the areas of the brain that control these sort of things.

It is also extremely clear to me that once an action is ingrained there is a 2 percent chance of change, how do I get to that figure. It is a guess I could say 5 per cent or 10 per cent what I do know is that there is only one person who can make a change an action and that is the bowler himself, it is his desire, his work ethic, his understanding of his body that will eventually change or not change an action.

I do also know that if a player is pinned as a chucker he is scarred for life. It is a tragedy that we have fudged the issue for so long. We cannot fudge the issue any more, players livelihoods are at stake!

Bob Woolmer 23rd December 2005
www.bobwoolmer.com


Interesting read this...[/COLOR]
 

jack_sparrow

U19 Debutant
Hmmm. Very Very Interesting.

I agree to some extent. If a bowler bowls according the revised rules, and is cleared by those rules, then it makes zero sense to charge the same man with same rules by the same people.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
jack_sparrow said:
Hmmm. Very Very Interesting.

I agree to some extent. If a bowler bowls according the revised rules, and is cleared by those rules, then it makes zero sense to charge the same man with same rules by the same people.
You can't clear a player for life though, surely each ball has to be judged individually. Otherwise, I can have my action cleared and then throw one and say 'But I was cleared in the lab, so I cannot be called for throwing'. If he's in the lab in the first place then his action has been judged to be borderline which, as far as I'm concerned, means it would need constant monitoring.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A fairly muddled argument by Woolmer

However, the things that stand out are that he doesnt believe the new laws are any more appropriate than the archaic ones they replaced and that junior coaches should carry much of the blame.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Cricket has a very fundamental problem in that for years and years it was just assumed that most bowlers were complying. Now it's fairly obvious that all bowlers are just cheating by different degrees. Hence, the concept of "bowling" is actually pretty much a myth, as far as I can see. It's more about the "look" of the action that it's compliance with the rules.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
thierry henry said:
Cricket has a very fundamental problem in that for years and years it was just assumed that most bowlers were complying. Now it's fairly obvious that all bowlers are just cheating by different degrees. Hence, the concept of "bowling" is actually pretty much a myth, as far as I can see. It's more about the "look" of the action that it's compliance with the rules.
It's ALWAYS been about the "look" of the action, because the 1000 frame-per-second camera has only been in existence for a couple of years. In the past, it (throwing) was a judgement-call based upon an umpire's opinion regarding what he saw (from square leg), and the bowler, once called, was pretty well sunk as far as his career was concerned.

Suddenly, with the advent of the technology, it is discovered that nearly all bowlers display some degree of flexion. So measurements are taken and criteria are set, yet still some bowlers "look" worse than the figures bear out (although I doubt that I have ever seen a more jerky, "throwy" action than Shabbir's at the end of the first Pakistan v India test - far worse than Charlie Griffith's bouncer or Tony Lock's fast ball).
 

Top