Best & Smooth Bowling Actions

[Richard]

Literally and in reality, no. I think, however, that they've been used to mean the same thing for the purposes of the study of illegal bowling actions, which may lead to some problems as the laws concern flexion only and not bend.

"Bend" is a fixed degree of sinuosity; "flexion" is the variance between amount of bend. However, if your elbow is 90degrees at the start of your bowling-action and 90degrees throughout it, there's nothing illegal about it. I'd imagine it's a biomechanical impossibility, but if you could somehow fix it like that you could deliver without breaking the rules.

 

[Athlai]

Kerry O'Keefe said that Vettori was about 0 flexion. An action adopted because Vettori thinks 1% flexion is too much bend apparently, good ol' Kerry.

 

[Richard]

1% = 3.6 degrees. IOW, something no human eye has a remote chance of noticing.

Oh dear.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Literally and in reality, no. I think, however, that they've been used to mean the same thing for the purposes of the study of illegal bowling actions, which may lead to some problems as the laws concern flexion only and not bend.

"Bend" is a fixed degree of sinuosity; "flexion" is the variance between amount of bend. However, if your elbow is 90degrees at the start of your bowling-action and 90degrees throughout it, there's nothing illegal about it. I'd imagine it's a biomechanical impossibility, but if you could somehow fix it like that you could deliver without breaking the rules.

That's what I found confusing originally...the idea that everybody's elbow flexes is a no-brainer really as it pretty much has to as far as I know. That everyone's elbow bends though (and I guess it's technically the same, but I think of elbow bend as moving your hand up to touch your shoulder etc) is another thing altogether. As I said though, someone (i think it was SS) explained this to me before and it seemed to make sense but I've forgotten what was said.

 

[thierry henry]

It's exactly the same in American cinema. Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, even 50 Cent are all midgets.

Not true

Especially 50 Cent who is 6 foot. Cruise is only shortish and Gibson about average height

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

McGrath without a shadow of doubt.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah, I thought Sreesanth was a "relatively" short man, and found to my surprise he was 6 foot 1. That's way above par by Indian standards.

There is no way Sreesanth is that tall

 

[thierry henry]

Just looking at some pics and tbh, Sreesanth may be in that 6' range. My bad.

 

[thierry henry]

Oh yeah. Shah Rukh is 5'8'' Aamir is 5'6'' and Salman 5'7''.

Yeah...so about average height for an Indian man, what an absolute shock

Sorry...don't get me started on height

 

[Goughy]

Sorry...don't get me started on height

Why not? Sounds possibly interesting.

Regarding height and international fast bowlers. I was talking to someone from a world health org recently (well, 6 months or so ago) and they were telling me that Bangladesh is one of the few countries where average height is decreasing.

Not good news for future quicks, though there are probably more important associated issues than fast bowling stocks.

 

[zaremba]

McGrath without a shadow of doubt.

McGrath's action was a masterpiece of efficiency. Minimum effort with maximum effect, with much of his pace seemingly coming from the snap of his wrist. However in pure aesthetic terms the fluidity and explosiveness of Donald's action wins out for me.

(ps I can't help but wince at the double entendres that are thrown up by every description I attempt of a bowling action)

 

[thierry henry]

Why not? Sounds possibly interesting.

Regarding height and international fast bowlers. I was talking to someone from a world health org recently (well, 6 months or so ago) and they were telling me that Bangladesh is one of the few countries where average height is decreasing.

Not good news for future quicks, though there are probably more important associated issues than fast bowling stocks.

Just a perverse obsession I have. I'm actually decidedly average in terms of both height and weight, but I just have a thing about them, probably a combination of my lifelong love of sport (where heights and weights are often discussed and there are usually "official" listings, etc) and my tendency towards pedantry.

It just really gets on my wick, the absurdity of someone like Brett Lee being described as short when he is actually decidedly on the side of tall (and by the standards of, say, pretty much the entirety of Asia, positively towering), or Malcolm Marshall being described as "a midget", or "tiny" at his height of 5'11" (was he actually this tall though?). If Marshall was really 5'11" then that is a firmly above average height- not for a fast bowler, I know, but if Marshall was really 5'11" that is anything but short.

Similarly with actors etc, people have a tendency to meet, say, a 5'9" actor or celebrity who they (for no valid reason) expected to be taller, and go home and tell everyone that they just meet so-and-so and he was a 5'2" dwarf and his appearance on screen is all camera-tricks.

*end rant*

To my embarrassment, I post at a site called celebheights dot com, there are many people a lot more perverse than me out there...

 

[Precambrian]

Ha ha cool down mate. My mention of Shah Rukh Khan etc is just a statement. And yes, they are "average" height.

 

[krkode]

I may have been the first to bring up the height issue and didn't actually mean anything by it besides just pointing it out.

I do think it is ridiculous calling MM and Lee short, and you probably know this, but ultimately it is all relative. Lee is shorter than McGrath, MM was obviously shorter than all his fast-bowling colleagues, and Tom Cruise doesn't look like the hunky action hero he portrays in movies... it's just relative. Not to say MM and Lee are short or that Tom Cruise isn't a good-looking guy or that he is unconvincing when he dons a leather jacket, shades and brandishes around a couple of guns.

Actually who says an action hero must be over six feet tall... I dunno why we believe that, but surely short people can own face too.

<-- 5'6"

 

[BoyBrumby]

I may have been the first to bring up the height issue and didn't actually mean anything by it besides just pointing it out.

I do think it is ridiculous calling MM and Lee short, and you probably know this, but ultimately it is all relative. Lee is shorter than McGrath, MM was obviously shorter than all his fast-bowling colleagues, and Tom Cruise doesn't look like the hunky action hero he portrays in movies... it's just relative. Not to say MM and Lee are short or that Tom Cruise isn't a good-looking guy or that he is unconvincing when he dons a leather jacket, shades and brandishes around a couple of guns.

Actually who says an action hero must be over six feet tall... I dunno why we believe that, but surely short people can own face too.

<-- 5'6"

Think that's fair enough, myself. I mean, back in the day there was an England & Bath lock forward (this is rugby union) called Nigel Redman who, at 6' 4" was by most people's standards a tall man, but was regularly spoken of as having done very well to play in that position at the highest level because he was so "short".

Fast bowlers are, one suspects, rather taller on average than cricketers generally.

 

[Uppercut]

Think that's fair enough, myself. I mean, back in the day there was an England & Bath lock forward (this is rugby union) called Nigel Redman who, at 6' 4" was by most people's standards a tall man, but was regularly spoken of as having done very well to play in that position at the highest level because he was so "short".

Fast bowlers are, one suspects, rather taller on average than cricketers generally.

Pfft. My brother's a lock forward and he's 4"9. He is playing under 11s, mind.