Vettori: Young spinners should expore relaxed rulings

[C_C]

Bowling the doosra without any elbow flexion is like a fast bowler trying to bowl with a perfectly straight elbow and ****ed wrists.
Its simply impossible without causing serious muscle damage to your forearm.
Same with the doosra.

 

[Dasa]

Have you tried bowling a doosra, Richard?, I have, and I can veritably tell you that its well-nigh impossible to get the ball to spin if you do it with a straight arm. Even if you chuck it, the batsman down the other end is going to know, since its such a blatant deviation from your regular action.

I've been trying a different type of 'doosra'...where you bowl with the regular off-spin action, but the ball is pushed out between the 1st and 2nd fingers using the thumb. For some reason, it always seem to turn the other way for me, and doesn't look markedly different to a regular off-spinner. However, it's pretty hard to control.

 

[benchmark00]

I've been trying a different type of 'doosra'...where you bowl with the regular off-spin action, but the ball is pushed out between the 1st and 2nd fingers using the thumb. For some reason, it always seem to turn the other way for me, and doesn't look markedly different to a regular off-spinner. However, it's pretty hard to control.

Wouldn't that have no pace on it, and have a bit of 'under' spin, making it just sit up nicely to be slapped?

The problem is getting it over the 22 with enough pace for it to cause a problem to the batsman, not the spinning as such.

 

[Dasa]

Wouldn't that have no pace on it, and have a bit of 'under' spin, making it just sit up nicely to be slapped?

The problem is getting it over the 22 with enough pace for it to cause a problem to the batsman, not the spinning as such.

Yeah, sort of. It doesn't slow up much, but it does tend to sit up because of the 'under' spin. It's OK as a surprise delivery once in a while if it's full enough.

 

[age_master]

Youngsters have been breaking the rules trying to copy Murali for years - now they are getting older and comring through the ranks they are being picked up

 

[Richard]

Because in order to achieve the required movement of the wrist/fingers you HAVE to bend your elbow as this forces your wrist to face a slightly different direction, allowing the wrist and fingers to rotate at the extreme angle required to bowl a doosra.

You can try it if you want - just grab a ball and try rolling your fingers over the ball in a doosra action. You'll find that with a straight arm its practically impossible to do since you just won't be able to get your wrist to rotate at the angle required. If you tried to force your elbow to stay straight (say by wearing a brace) its quite possible that you'd end up dislocating your elbow or some such thing. If you bend your elbow though, you'll find that you can get extra flexion in your wrist, allowing you to rotate your fingers over the ball at the required angle to bowl a doosra.

How can you dislocate your elbow if it doesn't move?

 

[Richard]

Bowling the doosra without any elbow flexion is like a fast bowler trying to bowl with a perfectly straight elbow and ****ed wrists.
Its simply impossible without causing serious muscle damage to your forearm.
Same with the doosra.

What do you mean by "****ed wrists"?

 

[Richard]

I've been trying a different type of 'doosra'...where you bowl with the regular off-spin action, but the ball is pushed out between the 1st and 2nd fingers using the thumb. For some reason, it always seem to turn the other way for me, and doesn't look markedly different to a regular off-spinner. However, it's pretty hard to control.

The type of grip, I think, used by Australian John "Jack" s, Iverson and Gleeson.

 

[Richard]

Youngsters have been breaking the rules trying to copy Murali for years

Err - except most people can't bowl like Murali whether breaking the rules or obeying them...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Mike Selvey article on Ramesh Powar

He's not accusing Powar of exploiting the new relaxed rules, just the opposite, but it's an interesting article that I had to post somewhere!

Selvey actually does touch on the doosra & its ramifications too:

"In the years BD (Before Doosra), it is hard to imagine the need for tolerance levels in the bend of the arm in delivery nor, just as an example of one worrying by-product, the need to have an ICC specialist attending the recent Under-19 World Cup in Sri Lanka solely to monitor junior actions and nip any rogue elements in the bud."

Not sure I entirely agree to put all the blame (if blame is the right word) on the doosra; Murali's action was dividing opinion before he developed one &, to my way of thinking, he has (unwittingly perhaps, but perhaps not) been the main driving force towards the new rules.

Full article (titled "The Powar and glory of old off-spin", Powar's name is such a gift to headline writers! ) from Thursday's Guardian here:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1747977,00.html

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that the grip used by Iverson was a bit different. If you touch the palm of your hand with your middle finger, and then rest the ball between that and an outstretched thumb, I think that's the grip. He used to come off a pretty long run-up to try and propel the ball down the other end of the pitch.

It's sort of like how a lot of people try and bowl when you play "mini-cricket" in the changing rooms and stuff.

 

[C_C]

What do you mean by "****ed wrists"?

****ed wrists - as in the wrist is near perpendicular to the forearm just before delivery and when you do deliver, you 'snap' the wrists down to get additional velocity. Lee does it, Flintoff does it and Walsh did it.
And there simply is no way you are gonna bowl with a ****ed wrist and not damage the muscles in your forearm.

 

[Son Of Coco]

STOP PRESS: Every bowler in the history of the game is found to have been chucking! Because the rules as they were in their day were based on false ideals.

STOP PRESS: Every player in the history of the game hasn't been tested...

Your statement is based on false ideals.

Of players tested not every one was found to be chucking, remember there was an exception.

I find your statement (one that is oft repeated) one of the silliest going around at the moment with regards to chucking.

 

[C_C]

Of players tested not every one was found to be chucking, remember there was an exception.

I think its rather interesting that only ONE outta many tested was found not to chuck and that too, a part time dibbly dobbly bowler.
As such, based on the evidence, it is legitimate to claim that every bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow. And if there are any such exception cases beyond Sarwan, it has to be established, not assumed. Therefore, if you think a particular bowler doesnt/didnt flex his elbow, you have to establish that. For now, all bowlers are automatic chuckers according to the old rule.

 

[luckyeddie]

Bowling the doosra without any elbow flexion is like a fast bowler trying to bowl with a perfectly straight elbow and ****ed wrists.
Its simply impossible without causing serious muscle damage to your forearm.
Same with the doosra.

Easy answer - don't bowl the doosra.

Or should I say "Don't throw the doosra"?

 

[Ikki]

I think its rather interesting that only ONE outta many tested was found not to chuck and that too, a part time dibbly dobbly bowler.
As such, based on the evidence, it is legitimate to claim that every bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow. And if there are any such exception cases beyond Sarwan, it has to be established, not assumed. Therefore, if you think a particular bowler doesnt/didnt flex his elbow, you have to establish that. For now, all bowlers are automatic chuckers according to the old rule.

So...Guilty till proven innocent eh?

 

[C_C]

So...Guilty till proven innocent eh?

Yup. You are guilty till proven innocent of chucking.
Just like you are guilty till proven innocent of breathing O2.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yup. You are guilty till proven innocent of chucking.
Just like you are guilty till proven innocent of breathing O2.

Or in your case, guilty until proved innocent of being full of hot O2.

 

[Dasa]

So...Guilty till proven innocent eh?

It's just logical, isn't it? If almost ALL bowlers today have been found to have been 'chucking' under the old laws, then isn't it just logic to suggest that in all probability, most bowlers in the past were similar. Or did every contemporary bowler suddenly change their bowling actions exactly when the tests took place...

 

[Ikki]

It's just logical, isn't it? If almost ALL bowlers today have been found to have been 'chucking' under the old laws, then isn't it just logic to suggest that in all probability, most bowlers in the past were similar. Or did every contemporary bowler suddenly change their bowling actions exactly when the tests took place...

Well here is what tickles me. It's when I made comments a while ago regarding the cultural understanding what is a bowl in the cricketing sense. If you're saying it's logical to assume everyone bowled this way, why couldn't I? Because I couldn't prove it was one reply. So obviously, you can see why there is such a backlash to some people's actions because of this. Furthermore, if all the talk of accuracy and being equitable being prime, I can't amuse the notion of judging people without proof.