SLA with a Doosra

[zaremba]

not by a long chalque

Google only shows two hits for "not by a long chalque", the above being one. The other is below:

Nothing Donald-esque, not by a long chalque

sincerely,

Zaremba Lexicographical Services

 

[BoyBrumby]

If memory serves, CW's own SLA shop-steward, Lord orthdox of vic, once said he was practicing a doosra (to cries of "no-ball" from his teammates) in the nets.

 

[Prince EWS]

If memory serves, CW's own SLA shop-steward, Lord orthdox of vic, once said he was practicing a doosra (to cries of "no-ball" from his teammates) in the nets.

Yeah, I can actually bowl it to a decent standard myself (relative to the grade I play, of course) as well, but even though it apparently (according to blokes I train with anyway) doesn't look that dodgy, I know I'm chucking it. If my arm didn't straighten 25 degrees I'd be surprised. It's really not particularly hard to bowl providing you don't have any straightening restrictions and you actually understand the basic mechanics of it. The challenge is in doing it legally. I'm a right arm offie and hence slightly less relevant to the thread although, as was said, it's the same action.

EDIT: Haha, bracket over-load. Dire.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah exactly. It was always merely a matter of time. Bowlers - right-arm or left-arm - who can bowl a Doosra are rare, right-armers are more common than left-armers. There were always likely to be a fair few RA before the first LA.

This is an obvious factor, but I also think the fact that SLA bowlers turn the ball away from right-handed batsmen (who are also more common than their left-handed peers, obviously) is relevant as well. Most batsmen tend to find the ball coming in to them easier to play, so there's theoretically less incentive for left arm spinners to learn how to bowl the delivery.

 

[Richard]

A little less incentive, maybe, yes indeed. Not, though, I'd say, that much. A change-up is a change-up - as long as it does something different to what is expected and is sufficiently well-disguised that the batsman can't telegraph it, it isn't really (on a macro scale) any more or less likely to prove effective for turning (or swinging) in or out.

As a stock-ball, the ball that moves away > the one that moves in, by a fair bit. As a change-up, the added benefit is very marginal.

 

[Richard]

Google only shows two hits for "not by a long chalque", the above being one. The other is below:



sincerely,

Zaremba Lexicographical Services

It should show-up far more than that - are you sure you've clicked on the "show similar results" button? I'd be surprised if I've used it less than 10 times in my CWdom. Maybe if you just used "by a long chalque" rather than not.

The explanation is somewhere as well, if you look hard enough. The CW Search Feature is probably a better way of trying to find it than Google.

 

[Prince EWS]

A little less incentive, maybe, yes indeed. Not, though, I'd say, that much. A change-up is a change-up - as long as it does something different to what is expected and is sufficiently well-disguised that the batsman can't telegraph it, it isn't really (on a macro scale) any more or less likely to prove effective for turning (or swinging) in or out.

As a stock-ball, the ball that moves away > the one that moves in, by a fair bit. As a change-up, the added benefit is very marginal.

My point was more the fact that a SLA bowler is more likely to get away without having heaps of variation than a right arm offie due to the increased potency of his stock ball to the majority of batsmen. As such, right arm off spinners have more incentive to develop different variations - like the doosra.

 

[Richard]

I see. In which case I agree fully.

(As long as the pitch offers enough grip to make the turn significant, obviously. If not, fingerspin of the right-arm or left-arm variety is likely to be equally ineffective.)

 

[Neil Pickup]

The point he was making is that it is not English.

 

[Richard]

The point who was making precisely?

 

[Prince EWS]

The point who was making precisely?

Zaremba I presume.

 

[Richard]

O I C. Yes, that'd make sense. Usually helps to quote when you're not replying to the post directly above yours TBH.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reason that slow left arm bowlers don't use it all that often is that more subtle variations which allow the ball to straighten slightly or skid on tend to be more effective than an outright doosra.

Murali has spoken, I believe, of how the doosra is more effective to the right handers than the left. And when bowling at left handers (i.e. the doosra leaving the batsman), SLA also have the rough to work with anyway.

 

[Migara]

The only place it will become valuable is in SL / PAK. Where there is a lot of left ahnd batsmen. WI also has a lot, but a good spinner does not need the doosra to get the WIndies batsmen.

 

[zaremba]

Is there a higher proportion of left hand batsmen in SL / Pakistan than anywhere else in the world? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Interesting thread this, btw.

 

[Xuhaib]

Is there a higher proportion of left hand batsmen in SL / Pakistan than anywhere else in the world? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Interesting thread this, btw.

Pakistan has probably the fewest apart from Fawad Alam who is not a regular yet there is actually no one in the top 7.

 

[Migara]

Is there a higher proportion of left hand batsmen in SL / Pakistan than anywhere else in the world? I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Interesting thread this, btw.

I am not sure either. but I have seen sides with majority of lefties in these countries.
SL had Jayasuriya, Arnold, Ranatunga, Tillekaratne and Vaas playing in top 8. Sangakkara, Gurusinghe, Sanjeewa Ranatunga also played in various eras.
PAK had Anwar, Sohail, Mujtaba, and Akram playing in top 8
WI had Lara, Arthurton, Adams, Chaderpaul and Ambrose in top 8, with Adrian Griffith as well.

Others sides only had 1-2 lefties in top 8.

And sub continent has lot of left arm seamers as well in recent years. Wasim, Kabir Khan, Vaas, Sajeew de Silva Sujeewa Silva, Zoysa, Welagedara, Thushara, Nehra, Pathan, Zaheer, Aamir and Tanvir sprins to my mind. (although only few of them were quality seamers)

 

[Richard]

Reason that slow left arm bowlers don't use it all that often is that more subtle variations which allow the ball to straighten slightly or skid on tend to be more effective than an outright doosra.

Isn't the whole point of the Doosra that it's less obvious and more subtle than the Arm-ball?

 

[jezibear]

Although different grip and action, Paul Adams did the same. Majority spinning away from RHB and occasional one spinning in.

BTW if the off spinners can develop it, why cannot SLA bowlers do it? it's mirror image of the technique.

i listened to an interview during the new zealand pakistan tests in nz earlier this year and he was talking about the doosra. i took the techniques he spoke about, practiced for a whole season and come near the end i could land it and turn it back in the nets. havent tried it in a match. its easier around the wicket as a sla

 

[jezibear]

if ya bowl it properly it can get some inconsistant bounce. i bowl one that can skip of the deck and then bowl it the same way and it pops off a length and find it just as good to left handers when bowling around the wicket. it allows me to straighten the ball for lbw and a doosra to bowl or take the edge