Spin bowling in Test & Limited overs cricket

[Gnske]

It's strange that one day in the future i'll tell my wife's kids about seeing the heroics of James Faulkner that one night, live and loud, and they won't know who the **** i'm talking about.

 

[Starfighter]

Drive/slog a full ball with a lot of spin on it vs. one that's straight. Same speed. The one with spin off it flies off the bat better (assuming ofcourse your don't mistime it). It's a pretty common phenomenon.

I'm surprised more of you haven't noticed this tbh. Maybe it's more of an Asian cricket thing? The more I think it, it does require using your wrists to a degree.

No I think it's a you 'haven't played enough cricket' thing, or a 'moulding observations into own assumptions' thing. Can you give me a reason why a spinning ball should transfer more kinetic energy into a target (in this case the bat) than a non-spinning ball with the same velocity.

You're also forgetting that a lot of the 'non spinning' full tosses you will have hit will have considerable amount of backspin on them. It's still spin.

Finally, you said:

So when Jadhav is slinging in short balls with no spin that only rise up to shin height, he doesn't just make it difficult for the batsman to use his feet to generate power, but he also takes a lot of energy off the ball

Which absolutely refers to balls pitching, not full tosses.

 

[cnerd123]

A spinning ball has more energy on it, does it not? So there is more energy there on the ball to work with. Can't give you numbers or equations, but surely you've felt the difference in hitting a ball that's still spinning as you make contact with it vs. one that's just moving in a straight light with no rotation? There's a clear difference.

Fair enough about backspin being a factor. And I wasn't limiting it to full tosses. Even a ball which pitches counts, it's just that it has to still be spinning as it contacts your bat. I figure that's too condition dependant (on some pitches the ball sticks in and slows down after pitching, on some it just slides on and will still be spinning significantly as you hit it, so can't generalise) so I tried to isolate an example you might have felt. Have you not felt the difference in driving a ball that's rotating a lot in the air vs one that's just heading straight to you? Think facing fast underam lobs as a throwdown vs a ball actually bowled at you. Think of playing a slow bowler vs one who actually gets the ball to whirr in the air. It definitely fly off the bat faster when you're batting against a ball that's got that much revs on it, assuming of course you hit it well. Maybe that's where you're disagreeing? A ball with a lot of spin on it is significantly harder for you or I to actually hit cleanly. We may let the ball hit the bat instead of vice versa, and when we try to hit a good spinner we too often miscue the shot and the ball goes nowhere. Whereas a straight slow bowler is much easier to line up and hit hard.

But assuming you can play the right shot and the right time, you definitely feel/see the ball go off the bat quicker when the ball is revolving more than when it isn't. Not limited to spinners, this effect exists with seamers too, and backspin counts as well.

Jadhav, when he pitches it, is doing so with very little spin or energy behind the ball. It's not just slow in measured pace, it's actually got no real zip behind it. I feel that's a factor behind why it proves hard for elite batsmen to put away. It just doesn't come off the bat as well. But yea, it's probably less of a factor when the ball actually gets to pitch, so maybe it's not as big a factor as I thought it was.

 

[stephen]

Rotational energy isn't going to make the ball ping off the bat. It might change the trajectory of the ball though.

 

[Bolo]

What does on the full mean? I've only heard it used when bats are advancing to meet the ball. I thought it could be used on half volleys, but I'm not sure.

 

[stephen]

"On the full" means hitting or getting to a ball before it had hit the ground. To catch someone out you have to catch the ball "On the full". Too hit a six the ball has to go over the rope "On the full".

 

[cnerd123]

I use on the full to sometimes refer to catching it on a half volley as well. Basically without giving the ball time to do anything off the pitch.

 

[Dan]

Remember when finding a good leg-spinner for test cricket was dream world ?

But now it seems finger spinners are performing better and are backed more for the longer format ? DRS and the ability to attack the pads with more accuracy. Is this a positive ? How much easier is it for spinners to pick up test wickets due to techniques and attitude to batting compared to the past and how much has DRS played its part ?

Leg-spinners are now limited overs cricket weapons more. Obviously spinning the ball both ways is tougher to line up.

Am I right in getting this feeling ? What are our thoughts on the state of spin bowling.

I'm trying to think this through, and have a few different (and underdeveloped) crackpot theories rolling around now.

In Tests, I'm not sure there's a real shift. In most teams around the world, the spinner (or spinners) who are playing regularly are the best available -- on balance, most of them are finger spinners.

I'd say a some of that comes down to:

• It being really hard to bowl flighted, aggressive, long-format leg spin
• It being really hard to bowl flighted, aggressive, long-format leg spin without going for ~4rpo. On first glance, the only one with an ER closer to 3 than 4 seems to be Yasir.
• Most teams having fairly well-developed, successful andgood pace attacks that form the core of the wicket taking strategy
• Modern quicks being made of glass, so having a spinner who can shift into bowling bulk overs economically at a moment's notice gains a stack of value -- which is far easier for an offie/SLA
• Most Test match spin bowling relying on beating batsmen in the air and threatening both edges (and the pad) ball after ball, with pressure applied by close-in fieldsmen.
• No real need to turn the ball both ways
• Alternatively, beating batsmen with bounce
• The ball having time to get old, and pitches having time to deteriorate.

Meanwhile in ODIs/T20s, I think some of the factors are:

• The wicket-taking ball being one that generates a miscue to deep midwicket -- this suits leg spinners who have quick arm actions that hide variations, and less accurate big turners
• Finger spinners usually not having one that goes the other way, making it a bit easier to swing through the line -- it'll turn a couple of inches or it'll hold its line, it won't turn a couple of inches the other way
• A near-obsession with always turning the ball away from the bat, to make it harder to swing through the line
• The ball never getting old and pitches never deteriorating, making it less likely turn in the first place (and being harder to actually rip out of the fingers)
• It being a bit less hard to bowl flat, defensive, short format leg spin
• Classical finger spinners seeming to find it a bit harder to adapt when batsmen are coming at them really hard and there's less field-related pressure
• Leg spinners with quick arm actions being hard to pick up, increasing the chance of a miscue when the batsman is trying to force the pace (whereas in long-form cricket they can more easily sit and wait for the bad one)
• The Test match spinner often being rested

But yeah, some of these are probably wrong, or are not at all helpful in actually explaining it.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

If we want to measure the energy of a ball:

Rotational Energy, Assume 30 rev/s = 1800 rev/min:

E = 1/2 I ω^2
= 1/2 * (2/5)*0.16kg*(0.036m)^2 * (30*2*pi rad/s)^2
= 1.47 J

Linear Energy, Assume 80 km/h = 22.2 m/s,

E = 1/2 m v^2
= 1/2 * 0.16 kg * 22.2^2
= 39.4 J

Conclusion: doubt it'll make any noticeable difference, particularly given that backspin means the difference will be less.

Comaparing to throw-downs, probably trajectory and distance (=reaction time) make more of a difference in those circumstances

And I'm not sure energy is necessarily the full story about how 'hard' one can hit a ball anyway.

 

[SeamUp]

I'm trying to think this through, and have a few different (and underdeveloped) crackpot theories rolling around now.

In Tests, I'm not sure there's a real shift. In most teams around the world, the spinner (or spinners) who are playing regularly are the best available -- on balance, most of them are finger spinners.

I'd say a some of that comes down to:

• It being really hard to bowl flighted, aggressive, long-format leg spin
• It being really hard to bowl flighted, aggressive, long-format leg spin without going for ~4rpo. On first glance, the only one with an ER closer to 3 than 4 seems to be Yasir.
• Most teams having fairly well-developed, successful andgood pace attacks that form the core of the wicket taking strategy
• Modern quicks being made of glass, so having a spinner who can shift into bowling bulk overs economically at a moment's notice gains a stack of value -- which is far easier for an offie/SLA
• Most Test match spin bowling relying on beating batsmen in the air and threatening both edges (and the pad) ball after ball, with pressure applied by close-in fieldsmen.
• No real need to turn the ball both ways
• Alternatively, beating batsmen with bounce
• The ball having time to get old, and pitches having time to deteriorate.

Meanwhile in ODIs/T20s, I think some of the factors are:

• The wicket-taking ball being one that generates a miscue to deep midwicket -- this suits leg spinners who have quick arm actions that hide variations, and less accurate big turners
• Finger spinners usually not having one that goes the other way, making it a bit easier to swing through the line -- it'll turn a couple of inches or it'll hold its line, it won't turn a couple of inches the other way
• A near-obsession with always turning the ball away from the bat, to make it harder to swing through the line
• The ball never getting old and pitches never deteriorating, making it less likely turn in the first place (and being harder to actually rip out of the fingers)
• It being a bit less hard to bowl flat, defensive, short format leg spin
• Classical finger spinners seeming to find it a bit harder to adapt when batsmen are coming at them really hard and there's less field-related pressure
• Leg spinners with quick arm actions being hard to pick up, increasing the chance of a miscue when the batsman is trying to force the pace (whereas in long-form cricket they can more easily sit and wait for the bad one)
• The Test match spinner often being rested

But yeah, some of these are probably wrong, or are not at all helpful in actually explaining it.

Very interesting and all valid points.

Although I think a lot of that re: Tests points to my point that through finger spin you are generally more accurate so therefore you ask more questions of batsmen. When you ask more questions through your accuracy and natural variation comes into it then with DRS you are in more trouble for LBW, bowled and caught around the wickets but the pressures those bring causes batsmen to do other things that wouldn't have done in the past and these collapses or lollapses against spin are becoming a trend. Attitude of batsmen also play its part.

Should we love it ? and should we look at batsmens test averages differently because of it ?

Look England v Saffer test series last year. Leading wicket-takers Moeen and Keshav. Both have ability no doubt about it but that is unusual. I think we do have to ask ourselves has the game changed and in this case spin bowling and batting against it. I think it has. Finger spinners for test cricket and wristies for limited overs. Or maybe better put we would take a good finger spinner over a good wristie in test cricket and vice versa for limited overs. It seemed the other way around not so long ago.

 

[stephen]

Nah finger spinners have always been better in the subcontinent with the conditions over there. What we've seen is the rise of Asia as the centre of world cricket.

Back not that long ago, the main cricketing nations were Australia, England, the West Indies, Pakistan and post- apartheid South Africa. All of these nations traditionally favoured faster wickets, with the exception of England. Wrist spin works better on faster, bouncer wickets.

During the 80s sides didn't even really need a spinner since slow over rates were the norm and the best sides all had quick- friendly wickets.

With the emergence of India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and the fall of the West Indies and subsequent change in character of the wickets they offer, finger spin has come to prominence again. Wrist spinners don't tend to do as well on the slower surfaces since they don't impart as much forward energy on the ball as finger spinners.

Finger spinners have gotten a lot of value out of DRS but for the most part the rise of the test finger spinner is more to do with the rise of the slower, drier surfaces.

When you can't get anything out of the pitch, wrist soon can be more useful since you get some actual turn out of it and a leg spinner turns the ball away from the right hander. It's also easier to legally bowl a googly than a doosra. Having to attack a ball that is potentially turning the other way is a lot more prone to error than defending one you didn't pick the turn of.

Obviously there are exceptions - Kumble and Murali were both wrist spinners but Kumble was quicker and bowled inn a more Asian- friendly style, seeking to beat the batsman off the pitch rather than through the air. Murali was a freak who was closer to a finger spinner in how he actually sent the ball down but was a wrist spinner so the ball spun further than finger spinners turn it. Nathan Lyon is a finger spinner but relies on a more wrist spinner style of attack (flighting the ball with high revs and getting it to drop and bounce) at home, while switching to a more Asian style when he's on tour.

All of the best English spinners have been finger spinners. All the best Australian spinners have been wrist spinners (sans- Lyon, who I've already discussed). Nearly all the best Indian spinners have been finger spinners.

Spin bowling is incredibly condition- dependent and right now in tests the conditions favour finger spinners. In ODIs with flat wickets and the need to take the ball away from the batsman and have a wrong un, wrist spinners are proving effective.

 

[Bolo]

If we want to measure the energy of a ball:

Rotational Energy, Assume 30 rev/s = 1800 rev/min:

E = 1/2 I ω^2
= 1/2 * (2/5)*0.16kg*(0.036m)^2 * (30*2*pi rad/s)^2
= 1.47 J

Linear Energy, Assume 80 km/h = 22.2 m/s,

E = 1/2 m v^2
= 1/2 * 0.16 kg * 22.2^2
= 39.4 J

Conclusion: doubt it'll make any noticeable difference, particularly given that backspin means the difference will be less.

Comaparing to throw-downs, probably trajectory and distance (=reaction time) make more of a difference in those circumstances

And I'm not sure energy is necessarily the full story about how 'hard' one can hit a ball anyway.

Science bitches.

I think you are right on energy not telling the full story though. A big spinning ball will move perhaps 1/4 laterally as down the track, so the calculation changes after pitching. There's also the question of hitting with or against the spin. Against it will add extra energy, but most is lost on contact with the bat. With it you have the momentum as well.

 

[Starfighter]

A follow up to this.

The fact that Jadhav's filthy roundarmers are hard to hit is probably because they are delivered from a height most players haven't faced since under 13s and only rise to shin height. Not because they've little spin on them.