Front-on bowling taking over

[wellAlbidarned]

I've always been under the impression that people consider side-on bowling to be the classical norm and ideal, with front-on being the exception, but that doesn't seem to be the case these days. Bowlers such as Lee, Steyn, Morkel, Broad, Anderson, Pattinson, Cummins, Harris, and countless others (both old and new) all have fairly front on bowling styles.

Just a mundane random observation. Any thoughts?

[Top_Cat]

Believe it's been heavily promoted at all levels in Australia for a while now as less of an injury-risk, making quick bowling more about big muscles and levers than smaller ones and joints.

[Monk]

There aren't many side on bowlers around nowadays, not like the classical days of Lindwall and Miller etc.

In Australia we have Siddle (full front on), Hilf (front on), Cummins and Pattinson (front on), Lee (half and half). Mitch Johnson is the only real side on bowler around the set-up.

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Monk

There aren't many side on bowlers around nowadays, not like the classical days of Lindwall and Miller etc.

In Australia we have Siddle (full front on), Hilf (front on), Cummins and Pattinson (front on), Lee (half and half). Mitch Johnson is the only real side on bowler around the set-up.

Says something about side-on bowling

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Jager

Says something about side-on bowling

Yeah, that Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus are better bowlers than Keith Miller

[Arachnodouche]

^yeah, that the one side on bowler among the bunch, as crap as he can be, is by far the fittest of the lot. Modern thinking

[Monk]

I think front on bowling must contribute to injury. When you look at old footage of guys like Lindwall, he was so smooth through the crease, and he had that draaaaaaag of his back foot in delivery stride, everything was fluent, his whole body seemed to flow through the delivery without as much impact as modern front on techniques.

Today, everything is forced through the front foot on delivery after a jump into the crease. I remember reading once about the amount of weight that goes through the front leg in a front on quick bowler's delivery stride. Can't remember the specifics, but it was a lot of kgs.

[Top_Cat]

Without checking, was under the impression Lindy had his fair share of injuries?

Think the biomechanical position is that front-on actions might give you more twinges but you're more likely to be bowling near your quickest past 30 than someone who has a predominantly side-on action. Think modern quicks like Lee, still bowling 90+ at 35 bear that out.

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Believe it's been heavily promoted at all levels in Australia for a while now as less of an injury-risk, making quick bowling more about big muscles and levers than smaller ones and joints.

working out well

[Top_Cat]

Fast bowling hurts.

#Revelations

[smalishah84]

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Monk

I think front on bowling must contribute to injury. When you look at old footage of guys like Lindwall, he was so smooth through the crease, and he had that draaaaaaag of his back foot in delivery stride, everything was fluent, his whole body seemed to flow through the delivery without as much impact as modern front on techniques.

Today, everything is forced through the front foot on delivery after a jump into the crease. I remember reading once about the amount of weight that goes through the front leg in a front on quick bowler's delivery stride. Can't remember the specifics, but it was a lot of kgs.

I would think along these lines.....side on looks so much smoother

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

I would think along these lines.....side on looks so much smoother

Michael Holding disagrees

[jan]

Only heard about the side-on and front-on techniques and googled a few vids.
Which technique do Steyn and Anderson use?

[smalishah84]

front on John Snow