On Panesar

[vic_orthdox]

Fair enough. An insider's view is always appreciated.

WRT Monty.

He imparts a lot of sidespin on the ball. This means that he can get a lot of turn, if the deck has a little bit in it. It means though that on a pitch with very little grass/grip for the spinners, that it'll slide straight on.

He doesn't get a lot of overspin. I think this is obviously something that he feels suits him, and fair enough too. Batsmen at the level he has to bowl to are very quick on their feet, and he may well feel that he needs to concern himself with trying to spin it as much as he can.

Still, I think this allows batsmen to read his length a lot earlier. Whenever I've watched Monty, batsmen tend to play him from the crease quite a bit because of his pace, but when they do come down the wicket they don't often run past it, because there isn't the "drop" / "dip" that other spinners get.

Also, because Monty's seam is almost perpendicular to the batsman (i.e. pointing at 9 o'clock), it means that on good pitches the ball won't grip and will skid on (as I already mentioned). If he got more overspin on the ball, and got the seam pointing more 10:30 / 11 o'clock, then the ball would spin with the momentum of the delivery, albeit not as much as what he might get it to do on a real turner with his normal style, rather than trying to spin the ball against the momentum of the delivery. It would also create more doubt in the batsmen's mind on a deck without as much turn, because at the moment the only real variable is the line due to drift. Because he is flat - so the batsman can read the length early, and because he won't be spinning it - because the ball is skidding on, it can make him at times a little too easy to play on a good pitch.

 

[BoyBrumby]

WRT Monty.

He imparts a lot of sidespin on the ball. This means that he can get a lot of turn, if the deck has a little bit in it. It means though that on a pitch with very little grass/grip for the spinners, that it'll slide straight on.

He doesn't get a lot of overspin. I think this is obviously something that he feels suits him, and fair enough too. Batsmen at the level he has to bowl to are very quick on their feet, and he may well feel that he needs to concern himself with trying to spin it as much as he can.

Still, I think this allows batsmen to read his length a lot earlier. Whenever I've watched Monty, batsmen tend to play him from the crease quite a bit because of his pace, but when they do come down the wicket they don't often run past it, because there isn't the "drop" / "dip" that other spinners get.

Also, because Monty's seam is almost perpendicular to the batsman (i.e. pointing at 9 o'clock), it means that on good pitches the ball won't grip and will skid on (as I already mentioned). If he got more overspin on the ball, and got the seam pointing more 10:30 / 11 o'clock, then the ball would spin with the momentum of the delivery, albeit not as much as what he might get it to do on a real turner with his normal style, rather than trying to spin the ball against the momentum of the delivery. It would also create more doubt in the batsmen's mind on a deck without as much turn, because at the moment the only real variable is the line due to drift. Because he is flat - so the batsman can read the length early, and because he won't be spinning it - because the ball is skidding on, it can make him at times a little too easy to play on a good pitch.

Cheers, again. As I said it's refreshing to hear the expert's view. Fully expect this to be paraphrased on cricinfo tomorrow...

WRT to Monty not getting much overspin, he does pick up (or seems to without checking) a pretty high proportion of LBWs as his dismissals. Is this because his arm ball is particularly well-disguised and the batsman play for his side-spin or just because umpires seem more inclined to give them to spinners in the post-Hawkeye game?

 

[Scaly piscine]

He gets more LBWs simply because players play for spin that isn't there. I think teams will *eventually* figure this out and he'll struggle to pick up wickets without changing/improving his game somewhat. This has happened quite a lot on flat pitches, so it's not like he's ripped one past and then bowled a straight one.

 

[Richard]

Lets keep it simple

Giles' shape meant that when the ball made contact with the turf, it was mainly the side of the ball that hit the ground, therefore providing very little grip except on the most forgiving surfaces.

Monty's shape means that the spinning seam usually hits the ground, providing much more friction between the ground and the ball, creating more turn. What restricts the amount of turn for Monty is the trajectory that he bowls at, and also the speed.

Because Monty often has the seam facing at a right angle to the batsman, it makes it hard for the seam to properly grip. The slower the delivery, the more time it spends against the turf and is less likely to skid on.

In the end, a pitch that provides spin for Panesar does not equal a pitch that would provide turn for Giles.

OK - let's say you're right about the seam angle (and you are, obviously). There is no amount of change of trajectory or speed that could enable MSP to turn the ball dangerously on all surfaces, or come remotely close to doing so. There are many surfaces which would equal no or little turn for either MSP or Giles. Obviously, if Giles could turn the ball dangerously on a surface, so could MSP.

The number of surfaces "in the middle" of these is the important question to be asked. I'm not quite so "ignorant of the craft" as you seem to think, obviously, though it goes without saying that I probably don't know as much about it as you do. So how many of the surfaces that MSP has so far managed to rip it through on would Giles have not done?

 

[Richard]

who made you the professor? im currently being trained by a guy that is one of the best if not the best left arm spin coach in the world and has studied all of those actions very carefully.
and the fact that Panesar spins it more has nothing to do with hands or effort, it has to do with action, angle and the way the ball is gripped and released, and Panesar is simply superior to Giles in that part of his bowling, I'm pretty sure Jack will back me up on this one aswell.

It may have to do with that as well - in fact I'm sure it does - but his large hands are an added advantage, though not a particularly considerable one.

 

[zaremba]

WRT Monty.

He imparts a lot of sidespin on the ball. This means that he can get a lot of turn, if the deck has a little bit in it. It means though that on a pitch with very little grass/grip for the spinners, that it'll slide straight on.

He doesn't get a lot of overspin. I think this is obviously something that he feels suits him, and fair enough too. Batsmen at the level he has to bowl to are very quick on their feet, and he may well feel that he needs to concern himself with trying to spin it as much as he can.

Still, I think this allows batsmen to read his length a lot earlier. Whenever I've watched Monty, batsmen tend to play him from the crease quite a bit because of his pace, but when they do come down the wicket they don't often run past it, because there isn't the "drop" / "dip" that other spinners get.

Also, because Monty's seam is almost perpendicular to the batsman (i.e. pointing at 9 o'clock), it means that on good pitches the ball won't grip and will skid on (as I already mentioned). If he got more overspin on the ball, and got the seam pointing more 10:30 / 11 o'clock, then the ball would spin with the momentum of the delivery, albeit not as much as what he might get it to do on a real turner with his normal style, rather than trying to spin the ball against the momentum of the delivery. It would also create more doubt in the batsmen's mind on a deck without as much turn, because at the moment the only real variable is the line due to drift. Because he is flat - so the batsman can read the length early, and because he won't be spinning it - because the ball is skidding on, it can make him at times a little too easy to play on a good pitch.

This series of posts has been top-quality. Very much appreciated.

 

[Manee]

He gets more LBWs simply because players play for spin that isn't there. I think teams will *eventually* figure this out and he'll struggle to pick up wickets without changing/improving his game somewhat. This has happened quite a lot on flat pitches, so it's not like he's ripped one past and then bowled a straight one.

Monty does get an appreciable drift, which must not help things for a batsman. It is slightly silly that batsmen can get their front pad in front of all three like they do to Monty, so often and I believe that there simply has to be a rational explanation. It is not as if Monty gets massively less turn than other finger spinners.

 

[Top_Cat]

He gets more LBWs simply because players play for spin that isn't there. I think teams will *eventually* figure this out and he'll struggle to pick up wickets without changing/improving his game somewhat. This has happened quite a lot on flat pitches, so it's not like he's ripped one past and then bowled a straight one.

Every Test bowler, nay every person, worth their salt evolves. Murali at his peak was a different bowler to when he was still finding his way. Hell, Murali now is a different bowler to when he was at his peak. Every bowler finds a method or methods that work(s) for them but they never last for long and they have to adjust. Monty, I have little doubt, will do the same. He'll have to, really.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Because of Giles' shape, he was never going to get any assistance from the pitch. That's what happens when you bowl flying saucers, unless it's a bunsen you get nothing from it.

Disagree.

Whilst the axis on which a Giles delivery spun was not entirely horizontal, it was generally not flying saucer-ish enough that the seam missed the pitch. From all the close up replays of a Giles delivery that I watched, anyway, it was the seam rather than the side of the ball that was making contact with the track. He simply didn't have enough revs on it to get it to turn on the majority of pitches, IMO.

Look at Murali. His stock delivery is a scrambled seam, so the vast majority of the time the side of the ball is going to be hitting the ground, rather than the seam. Yet he still turns it on Bunsens and non Bunsens alike, simply because a Murali delivery has far more revolutions on it than a Giles delivery, or indeed any other fingerspinner's delivery.

 

[fredfertang]

WRT Monty.

He imparts a lot of sidespin on the ball. This means that he can get a lot of turn, if the deck has a little bit in it. It means though that on a pitch with very little grass/grip for the spinners, that it'll slide straight on.

He doesn't get a lot of overspin. I think this is obviously something that he feels suits him, and fair enough too. Batsmen at the level he has to bowl to are very quick on their feet, and he may well feel that he needs to concern himself with trying to spin it as much as he can.

Still, I think this allows batsmen to read his length a lot earlier. Whenever I've watched Monty, batsmen tend to play him from the crease quite a bit because of his pace, but when they do come down the wicket they don't often run past it, because there isn't the "drop" / "dip" that other spinners get.

Also, because Monty's seam is almost perpendicular to the batsman (i.e. pointing at 9 o'clock), it means that on good pitches the ball won't grip and will skid on (as I already mentioned). If he got more overspin on the ball, and got the seam pointing more 10:30 / 11 o'clock, then the ball would spin with the momentum of the delivery, albeit not as much as what he might get it to do on a real turner with his normal style, rather than trying to spin the ball against the momentum of the delivery. It would also create more doubt in the batsmen's mind on a deck without as much turn, because at the moment the only real variable is the line due to drift. Because he is flat - so the batsman can read the length early, and because he won't be spinning it - because the ball is skidding on, it can make him at times a little too easy to play on a good pitch.

Fascinating - have you read Duncan Fletcher's views on Monty's limitations as set out in his autobiography? - would like to know what you think of them if you have

 

[Richard]

Every Test bowler, nay every person, worth their salt evolves. Murali at his peak was a different bowler to when he was still finding his way. Hell, Murali now is a different bowler to when he was at his peak. Every bowler finds a method or methods that work(s) for them but they never last for long and they have to adjust. Monty, I have little doubt, will do the same. He'll have to, really.

Monty Panesar was also a better 23-year-old bowler than most will ever be.

He already had most of what a fingerspinner can at that age. That's unusual, and he deserves great credit for this, but it doesn't mean he'll be able to do something no fingerspinner can ever do.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He gets more LBWs simply because players play for spin that isn't there. I think teams will *eventually* figure this out and he'll struggle to pick up wickets without changing/improving his game somewhat. This has happened quite a lot on flat pitches, so it's not like he's ripped one past and then bowled a straight one.

That's because fairly often, the one that goes straight on has just as much, if not more, spin on it than all his other deliveries. It's the angle at which the seam is pointing that is the variation, and the slight change in speed. He further exacerbates the "9 o'clock"-ness of his deliveries, ensuring that the ball he wants to capture LBWs will always skid on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Disagree.

Whilst the axis on which a Giles delivery spun was not entirely horizontal, it was generally not flying saucer-ish enough that the seam missed the pitch. From all the close up replays of a Giles delivery that I watched, anyway, it was the seam rather than the side of the ball that was making contact with the track. He simply didn't have enough revs on it to get it to turn on the majority of pitches, IMO.

Look at Murali. His stock delivery is a scrambled seam, so the vast majority of the time the side of the ball is going to be hitting the ground, rather than the seam. Yet he still turns it on Bunsens and non Bunsens alike, simply because a Murali delivery has far more revolutions on it than a Giles delivery, or indeed any other fingerspinner's delivery.

Giles undercut the ball, because he was bowling around his front leg.

I.e. if you drew a line between his back foot and his front foot at the point of delivery, that line would continue on towards deep third man/gully. He had to undercut the ball to get the ball towards the batsman. This meant he never had "pure" shape.

I'd propose that Murali still gets the amount of turn that he does because of the huge amount of overspin he still gets on the ball. This means that the spin is working with the momentum of the delivery, rather than against it. Obviously, the ridiculous amount of revolutions also helps. Also, it will create natural variation because some balls will hit the seam.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah but what was interesting is that Giles actually looked as threatening as I'd ever seen him early in Brisbane. Was bowling quite well until Ponting took control.

He did start off pretty well and for a while it looked like DF might have actually made the right choice. But, I think Giles, given the sort of bowler he is, would always bowl better on a slower wicket while Panesar would be a safer bet on a wickets with more bounce and is therefore always more likely to outbowl Giles in Australia.

 

[Uppercut]

Giles undercut the ball, because he was bowling around his front leg.

I.e. if you drew a line between his back foot and his front foot at the point of delivery, that line would continue on towards deep third man/gully. He had to undercut the ball to get the ball towards the batsman. This meant he never had "pure" shape.

I'd propose that Murali still gets the amount of turn that he does because of the huge amount of overspin he still gets on the ball. This means that the spin is working with the momentum of the delivery, rather than against it. Obviously, the ridiculous amount of revolutions also helps. Also, it will create natural variation because some balls will hit the seam.

I don't wish to resurrect the worst debate in cricket history, but in your opinion, is Murali's action a chuck?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Giles undercut the ball, because he was bowling around his front leg.

I.e. if you drew a line between his back foot and his front foot at the point of delivery, that line would continue on towards deep third man/gully. He had to undercut the ball to get the ball towards the batsman. This meant he never had "pure" shape.

I'd propose that Murali still gets the amount of turn that he does because of the huge amount of overspin he still gets on the ball. This means that the spin is working with the momentum of the delivery, rather than against it. Obviously, the ridiculous amount of revolutions also helps. Also, it will create natural variation because some balls will hit the seam.

Yeah, I see the point about his action, but from what I saw he never actually ever undercut the ball very much.

Re: Murali and overspin, possibly, but Giles also got a lot of overspin on the ball as well. His seam would be pointing towards gully as it went down. And, to use a different example to Murali, look at Warne's delivery to Strauss at Edgbaston in 2005. That was with a scrambled seam, and had no overspin on it whatsoever - as close to a pure leggie as you can get.

 

[Richard]

I don't wish to resurrect the worst debate in cricket history, but in your opinion, is Murali's action a chuck?

Pretty sure McNamara's answer is no, IIRR from previous polls.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't wish to resurrect the worst debate in cricket history, but in your opinion, is Murali's action a chuck?

*shoulders arms*

Look, to be honest, I'm not fussed. More than happy to trust the technology.

 

[tooextracool]

Giles didn't really ever "flight" the ball as such, because there was no overspin on it whatsoever. If he bothered to throw it up, it would hang there - never gets any drop. What he did to was vary his pace subtly, that was the biggest thing going for him.

You cannot honestly tell me that Giles didnt flight the ball. I know that he spent a large majority of his career on pitches that didnt allow him to get much purchase out of it (and therefore bowled a bit flatter), but its pretty obvious that when he bowled in the subcontinent that he did toss the ball up.

 

[SJS]

I don't wish to resurrect the worst debate in cricket history, but in your opinion, is Murali's action a chuck?

That question is not valid anymore.

What one can ask, in my opinion, is ... Do you think ICC's new definition of what constitutes "chucking" is correct/fair/justified etc etc?