Best & Smooth Bowling Actions

[Precambrian]

Optical illusions are a dangerous thing. As is the "if it looks worse then it must be worse" line of thought.

Precisely. Esp after that ICC report which said all bowlers including McG, have an inevitable bend.

 

[zaremba]

Shabbir Ahmed...

Followed by Allan Donald.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Is it precisely the same flaw, though? That's my point.

Well, I doubt anyone's elbows are exactly the same, so strictly speaking maybe not. But inasmuch as they both extend beyond the perdendicular, they have precisely the same type of flaw.

I'm not arguing the case one way or the other, merely pointing out that hyperextension in & of itself doesn't seem to make the action of every bowler who suffers/is blessed with it look like a chuck. I can't recall RP's action ever having been questioned.

 

[Richard]

BTW... please could someone add "since 1990" into the thread title?

 

[Uppercut]

Optical illusion. The guy hyper-extends at the elbow more than any other athlete I've ever seen. It's why he's going to be a very sore old man.

Yeah, that's kinda what i was saying. No matter how many times i look at it, knowing it's a fair delivery, it still looks like a chuck. Whereas with Murali, knowing the details of his elbow dysfunction clears the issue from a visual point of view.

Nothing i hate more than someone insisting they know better than the science because "it looks illegal". **** you Nasser Hussain.

 

[Richard]

Shabbir Ahmed...

Followed by Allan Donald.

It's funny, you know - when the elbow was all right, I actually quite liked Shabbir Ahmed's action. He sort of did the awkward thing without making it look awkward, unlike for example Courtney Walsh.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, I doubt anyone's elbows are exactly the same, so strictly speaking maybe not. But inasmuch as they both extend beyond the perdendicular, they have precisely the same type of flaw.

I'm not arguing the case one way or the other, merely pointing out that hyperextension in & of itself doesn't seem to make the action of every bowler who suffers/is blessed with it look like a chuck. I can't recall RP's action ever having been questioned.

Aside from the possibility that Shoaib has a more flexible elbow the RP, I wonder whether that's because RP doesn't try to bowl as quick as Shoaib. With Shoaib you're getting an extreme example of his hyper-extension because he's going balls-out every delivery. RP Singh just doesn't try to send them down quick all the time putting less stress on the elbow, less apparent hyper-extension, etc. I've heard he has a terrifying quicker ball so I wouldn't mind having a look at one of those.

Either way, under the law, neither of them chuck. If the bend in the elbow is due solely to hyper-extension, perfectly legal.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that's kinda what i was saying. No matter how many times i look at it, knowing it's a fair delivery, it still looks like a chuck. Whereas with Murali, knowing the details of his elbow dysfunction clears the issue from a visual point of view.

Nothing i hate more than someone insisting they know better than the science because "it looks illegal". **** you Nasser Hussain.

Not sure Hussain actually genuinely believes his action is illegal - certainly there are far worse propagators of Murali's-action-is-illegal in the game.

The infamous comment of 2003/04 was, as he said, more aimed at trying to get under Murali's skin than anything else. He said he hated the way so many of the England players were so matey with Murali, thought it detracted from England's chances, as Murali is someone who loves to be loved. So he wanted to let Murali know he was in a battle.

Murali and Shoaib, BTW, I'd just like to add for the umpteenth time, are polar-opposites not one and the same. Not directed at anyone in particular, but Murali's elbow doesn't straighten fully to 180degress; Shoaib's (and quite a few others', among them James Kirtley and IIRR Kyle Mills) straightens far beyond 180degrees.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, that's kinda what i was saying. No matter how many times i look at it, knowing it's a fair delivery, it still looks like a chuck. Whereas with Murali, knowing the details of his elbow dysfunction clears the issue from a visual point of view.

Nothing i hate more than someone insisting they know better than the science because "it looks illegal". **** you Nasser Hussain.

Funnily enough, science might actually soon be coming round to the thinking of Nasser et al. Whereas previously science has concentrated of the degree of the flexion, work is now being done on the speed of the flexion.

There's a chap who's studying for a PhD in physics & is also a bit of a cricket tragic who outlines this is his rather excellent blog, Pappus' Plane (entry dated March 21, 2008):

pappubahry(dot)blog spot(dot)com/search?q=murali

Add "." for (dot) and remove the space between blog and spot for link to work. Seems to be barred on CW for some reason.

 

[Richard]

Blogspot is filtered, there have been requests to have it un-filtered but either they've not been spotted by the relevant personnel or there's good reason that none of us know about why it needs to be blocked.

 

[FBU]

Donald with the best action.
I like Abdul Razzaq's run up.

 

[Precambrian]

Blogspot is filtered, there have been requests to have it un-filtered but either they've not been spotted by the relevant personnel or there's good reason that none of us know about why it needs to be blocked.

Guess it's due to the reason that some file extensions automatically get downloaded while visiting blog spot. Always do like that in mine.

 

[Top_Cat]

Funnily enough, science might actually soon be coming round to the thinking of Nasser et al. Whereas previously science has concentrated of the degree of the flexion, work is now being done on the speed of the flexion.

There's a chap who's studying for a PhD in physics & is also a bit of a cricket tragic who outlines this is his rather excellent blog, Pappus' Plane (entry dated March 21, 2008):

pappubahry(dot)blog spot(dot)com/search?q=murali

Add "." for (dot) and remove the space between blog and spot for link to work. Seems to be barred on CW for some reason.

Again, though, in the case of Shoaib, we're not talking about flexion but hyper-extension. They are completely different processes. The laws only take into account the average flexion when determining whether a bowler chucks for the very good reason that one is controlled and the other is not.

Fact is, the blogger gets a bunch of definitions wrong or admits he's unsure so he's probably not the best person to ask anyway. Not a criticism of him as such, he's just not trained in the right area.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Andrew Caddick was a replica of Sir Hadlee, isnt it?

Only in attempted action.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Im not sure Id agree with that. In fact Id heavily disagree. It would an interesting discussion but I can see myself ever getting swayed.

No, me either, Holding's action was superb. And he was quite a bowler. Nothing against Donald of course as he was also very good.

 

[Precambrian]

Boy, don't Steyn and Hadlee look alike?

 

[Uppercut]

Funnily enough, science might actually soon be coming round to the thinking of Nasser et al. Whereas previously science has concentrated of the degree of the flexion, work is now being done on the speed of the flexion.

There's a chap who's studying for a PhD in physics & is also a bit of a cricket tragic who outlines this is his rather excellent blog, Pappus' Plane (entry dated March 21, 2008):

pappubahry(dot)blog spot(dot)com/search?q=murali

Add "." for (dot) and remove the space between blog and spot for link to work. Seems to be barred on CW for some reason.

I don't really agree with the concept of the blog. He has an idea that we should find a method of analysis that "makes those who look like chuckers chuckers". For someone with a physics PHD, that's a quite disgraceful approach. The idea of an experiment is to find something out, as opposed to confirm what you already believe. His method involves seeing someone you believe is a chucker, then looking to somehow find a method of analysis that makes everyone who he thinks is a chucker, a chucker. If you look hard enough, you'll always find a specifically designed method that supports any thesis.

That's why his research is so poor. He decides what conclusion he wants to come to, then decides what method is best based on how close each method comes to his pre-determined conclusion. It's not fair, it's not science, and he may as well use the religion-style argument: "i think he's a chucker, therefore he's a chucker".

 

[Precambrian]

"i think he's a chucker, therefore he's a chucker".

 

[silentstriker]

The key goal that we want is for science to come up with a criterion whereby bowlers who look like chuckers are chuckers. An exception to this is Murali, who can bowl in a brace (so he can't possibly chuck) and still look bad.

Yea, he kills the aim of his first sentence with his second sentence. If he is admitting that Murali doesn't chuck, yet looks like he does, than that means using anything that bases human sight as the benchmark for chucking will automatically be flawed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yea, he kills the aim of his first sentence with his second sentence. If he is admitting that Murali doesn't chuck, yet looks like he does, than that means using anything that bases human sight as the benchmark for chucking will automatically be flawed.

Bloody physicists. With hypotheses that flawed, I bet he's a theoretical physicist.