***Official*** South Africa in England

[Richard]

Never been a depth study into swing, IIRC. However, cloud cover, air flow and a layer of water vapour about an inch above the pitch are the main culprits, as identified by past players and experts.

I'm interested as to how the lattermost is supposed to make a difference TBH. Many times the ball swings before reaching this height.

Also, of times the ball will swing (if the seam happens to fall into the right position - this is a matter of complete chance) after passing the bat at considerable (a metre or more off the ground) height.

 

[shankar]

Never been a depth study into swing, IIRC. However, cloud cover, air flow and a layer of water vapour about an inch above the pitch are the main culprits, as identified by past players and experts.

There have been a few studies. Strangely, none of the studies in lab conditions have revealed any relation between swing and air humidity.

 

[Richard]

Strangely, none of the scientific studies of cricket ball swing in lab conditions have revealed any relation between swing and air humidity.

No. Science has never been able to totally explain swing.

We've had things go as far as some supposed scientific expert say that swing was an optical-illusion.

 

[stumpski]

Just thought I'd mention here (though I could have started a new thread tbh) that a documentary on Hansie Cronje is about to start on BBC4 in the UK. Does anyone know anything about this, or seen it before perhaps?

Edit: just saw previous post. I don't know whether BBC iPlayer is available overseas, I suspect not.

 

[Richard]

Haha, was going to say, your namesake has already mentioned.

Am watching WI vs Aus myself TBH.

 

[stumpski]

Next programme on the same channel is The Basil D'Oliveira Conspiracy, which has been on before I think, worth another look though.

I can follow WI-Aus on here.

 

[Richard]

Oh, yeah, seen that one about 3 times now myself.

That shot of Arthur Gilligan with the Queen still looks a bit spooky, to me.

 

[shankar]

We've had things go as far as some supposed scientific expert say that swing was an optical-illusion.

This was a looong time back though - before Bradman's time I think.

No. Science has never been able to totally explain swing.

This article gives a convincing explanation of the mechanics. If the mechanism described is accurate, then several aspects of conventional wisdom about reverse swing are wrong. Reverse swing is not characterised by the ball swinging towards the shiny side as is commonly believed. It also involves swing towards the rough side. He identifies the swing type where the ball swings towards the shiny side as a completely different phenomenon and calls it 'contrast swing'.

 

[Richard]

This was a looong time back though - before Bradman's time I think.

Really? I confess I'm not familiar with the particulars, but I'd thought it was a bit more recent than that. Not this decade or the last, certainly. I'd imagined it was the 1960s or 1970s, or maybe 1980s.

 

[shankar]

Really? I confess I'm not familiar with the particulars, but I'd thought it was a bit more recent than that. Not this decade or the last, certainly. I'd imagined it was the 1960s or 1970s, or maybe 1980s.

In this article: http://orca.rsmas.miami.edu/~majumdar/cricket/cricket1.html, Bradman refers to "well-meaning theorists (some of whom have even gone to the extent of writing newspaper articles on the subject) that a cricket ball cannot be made to change its direction in the air". I'm not sure if the claims he was referring to were the 'optical illusion' ones.

 

[Richard]

Think this is a good question to ask here too:

Anyone want to have bet on what James Anderson's Economy rate is going to be this test?

 

[superkingdave]

4.35

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

James Anderson won't play this series. He's going to retire halfway through the third Test against New Zealand with many goals unfulfilled and forever in the shadow of Steve Harmison.

 

[Richard]

Might be prescient to remind all that Anderson is now almost a year on from the age Norman Cowans was when he played his final Test.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

About a year shy of Andy Ganteaume's mark too, incidentally. Useless fact #545.

 

[jonny1408]

Test Team for England vs. South Africa

What would be your starting line up for the 1st test vs. South Africa, mine would be:

1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Vaughan
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Ambrose
7. Flintoff
8. Broad
9. Sidebottom
10.Anderson
11.Panesar

I wasn't sure whether to drop Bell for Flintoff or a bowler, and as Broad, Anderson and Sidebottom have bowled very well in the NZ tests, I didn't want to drop a bowler. Then it was between Bell/Collingwood/Cook for the other place, Cook although out of form I wouldn't want Vaughan opening because I think he's a lot better no.3. Between Bell and Collingwood, both been making runs in the first ODI, both horrendously out of touch in the tests. Bell has probably looked better in the first ODI but I still doubt that he can score runs when it really matters and I think England could be in a lot of tricky situations in against SA, and Collingwood will be a lot more likely to be able to score tricky runs.

 

[wpdavid]

This might be better in the official England vs SA thread.

Either way, Ambrose isn't a test number 6 afaics

 

[Richard]

Yeah, merge with tour thread TBH.

I think I'll wait until the NZ ODIs are over myself, as we'll then see how much part they've (wrongly) placed on them for the Bell and Collingwood cases.

 

[jonny1408]

Yeah, merge with tour thread TBH.

How do i do that?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How do i do that?

Attain moderator status.