Best & Smooth Bowling Actions

[Evermind]

Akhtar just looks like he's taking a shy at the stumps from midwicket after a 100m sprint.

Agreed!

 

[Cricket_God]

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.

Rp singh is 22 and has clocked 149kmph may be when he develops more he could be agenuine quickie with that action.

 

[Evermind]

Rp singh is 22 and has clocked 149kmph may be when he develops more he could be agenuine quickie with that action.

He's gonna have to put on a few pounds for that to happen. And spend quality time at the gym.

 

[Precambrian]

Rp singh is 22 and has clocked 149kmph may be when he develops more he could be agenuine quickie with that action.

I don't want him to be that quick. I want him to put the ball, atleast 5 out of an over, in the proper place.

 

[kingkallis]

He looked out of his mind in last ODI! I dont think a wayward 150+ RP will be handier than disciplined 140+ RP!

 

[Precambrian]

 

[Son Of Coco]

Boy, don't Steyn and Hadlee look alike?

Not really...

 

[Precambrian]

Not really...

A young Hadley without mustache. The body language of both are similar.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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".

What he's attempting to do, as he baldly states, is to match what we might call the "common-sense approach" to chucking (as espoused by Nasser) to some verifiable, empirical science. It's a nonsense that bowlers whose actions aren't questioned regularly broach the 15 degree tolerance & equally so that anyone who does can't be called to brook for it until after the fact.

Moreover, the fifteen degree tolerance is an artificial construct entirely designed to accomodate certain bowlers' actions. If it still allows chuckers to chuck it clearly isn't a very good law. We can't go back to the old law, Pandora's box is open, but this, to extend the metaphor, is the hope.

 

[Precambrian]

What he's attempting to do, as he baldly states, is to match what we might call the "common-sense approach" to chucking (as espoused by Nasser) to some verifiable, empirical science. It's a nonsense that bowlers whose actions aren't questioned regularly broach the 15 degree tolerance & equally so that anyone who does can't be called to brook for it until after the fact.

Moreover, the fifteen degree tolerance is an artificial construct entirely designed to accomodate certain bowlers' actions. If it still allows chuckers to chuck it clearly isn't a very good law. We can't go back to the old law, Pandora's box is open, but this, to extend the metaphor, is the hope.

Didnt they say 99 per cent of bowlers bend beyond 10 percent?

 

[Uppercut]

What he's attempting to do, as he baldly states, is to match what we might call the "common-sense approach" to chucking (as espoused by Nasser) to some verifiable, empirical science. It's a nonsense that bowlers whose actions aren't questioned regularly broach the 15 degree tolerance & equally so that anyone who does can't be called to brook for it until after the fact.

Moreover, the fifteen degree tolerance is an artificial construct entirely designed to accomodate certain bowlers' actions. If it still allows chuckers to chuck it clearly isn't a very good law. We can't go back to the old law, Pandora's box is open, but this, to extend the metaphor, is the hope.

Actually the construct was entire designed to accommodate any bowler's action. The original law was between ten and five degrees depending on the type of bowler, and the vast majority of cricketers flexed more than this so either more leeway had to be given or everyone had to start bowling with arm-braces on.

The original law stated:

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

so in truth there was never any element of "if he looks like a chucker, he's a chucker" in the law, it was always black and white. The laws have been rewritten as little as is realistically possible, and screwing around with them in order to make someone who's action one dislikes illegal is not only grossly unfair, but wildly hypocritical as those who do so continually claim to be attempting to preserve the sanctity of the game.

 

[Richard]

Dead-set, conspiracy-theorist nutcases who think the 15degree limit was deliberately designed to accomodate certain bowlers don't have a clue.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually the construct was entire designed to accommodate any bowler's action. The original law was between ten and five degrees depending on the type of bowler, and the vast majority of cricketers flexed more than this so either more leeway had to be given or everyone had to start bowling with arm-braces on.

The original law stated:



so in truth there was never any element of "if he looks like a chucker, he's a chucker" in the law, it was always black and white. The laws have been rewritten as little as is realistically possible, and screwing around with them in order to make someone who's action one dislikes illegal is not only grossly unfair, but wildly hypocritical as those who do so continually claim to be attempting to preserve the sanctity of the game.

The point is that it doesn't tho. The article states that of the 31 bowlers tested who didn't have hyper-extension six actually exceeded the tolerance, even allowing for +/- 1 degree margin of error.

To appraoch the argument from the other side, it's surely a nosense that bowlers who are, by the current law, chucking aren't called for it just because their actions look ok, isn't it? Equally it's unfair that bowlers who have suspect-looking actions are reported based on the umpires' perception?

Looks like an awful law to me.

 

[haroon510]

wasim akram.. made it look easy..

since he isn't in the poll..voted for McGrath

 

[kingkallis]

I should have added Akram instead of Akhtar!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I just did a Google search for bowling action images and the best was this.

 

[Precambrian]

I just did a Google search for bowling action images and the best was this.

Where's the action?

 

[Burgey]

Where's the action?

about 14 inches above the photo (assuming she's bending over to deliver the ball), unless I'm mistaken.

On topic, Colin Croft, surely

 

[Son Of Coco]

Didnt they say 99 per cent of bowlers bend beyond 10 percent?

They did, but I was never tested were you?

 

[Son Of Coco]

The point is that it doesn't tho. The article states that of the 31 bowlers tested who didn't have hyper-extension six actually exceeded the tolerance, even allowing for +/- 1 degree margin of error.

To appraoch the argument from the other side, it's surely a nosense that bowlers who are, by the current law, chucking aren't called for it just because their actions look ok, isn't it? Equally it's unfair that bowlers who have suspect-looking actions are reported based on the umpires' perception?

Looks like an awful law to me.

I've forgotten someone's seemingly sensible response to my confusion on this topic a while back now and so I'm confused again too...are 'elbow bend' and 'flexion' the same thing!?