The difference between bowling and chucking.

[kiwiviktor81]

Video is terrible but I this is pretty dodgy Younis Khan Clean Bowled by Kyle Mills - YouTube

That one didn't look as bad as most of what Shaun Tait bowls. If Mills chucked he'd be quicker than 130kph.

 

[MW1304]

Ajmal isn't a great spinner of the ball though. He is good thanks to his doosra and variations.

Ajmal does turn it pretty big, especially for a finger spinner. Last year in England he got his doosra to turn a fair amount - probably a video of it on youtube somewhere.

 

[smash84]

I guess the doosra is one delivery which is almost impossible to bowl with a clean action.

Even Saqlain throws the doosra even though his is probably the cleanest doosra

Saqlain Mushtaq Doosra Against Austrailia - YouTube

CLASSICAL DOSRA BY SAEED AJMAL (MUST WATCH) .flv - YouTube

 

[Daemon]

Can see Ajmal having loads of success in the near future after which they'll investigate his action and suspend him for a bit

 

[weldone]

I guess the doosra is one delivery which is almost impossible to bowl with a clean action.

Bang on target (almost).

Bowling a googly for a right-arm legspinner is possible without bending the arm, but bowling a doosra without bending the arm isn't humanely possible for a right-arm offspinner.

Those who don't believe in the paradox should try it on their own. There's something about our bone structure that causes this problem.

Note: I'm not suggesting that bowling a doosra is always chucking. Remember, bending the arm less than 15% (?) isn't chucking.

 

[Howe_zat]

The way it looks to me is that when bowling a doosra, the entire movement of the wrist in invested in lateral movement rather than putting power behind the ball. Hence there is almost nil power going into getting the ball down to the other end unless you put some elbow into it. A "clean" doosra may be possible, but it would likely bounce three or four times before it gets to the batsman.

 

[smash84]

Bang on target (almost).

Bowling a googly for a right-arm legspinner is possible without bending the arm, but bowling a doosra without bending the arm isn't humanely possible for a right-arm offspinner.

Those who don't believe in the paradox should try it on their own. There's something about our bone structure that causes this problem.
[/B]

haha.....this.....trying it out makes it so much easier to understand........

your avatar is funny

 

[weldone]

your avatar is funny

lost an avatar bet...will have to keep this one on for more than one more month...i don't mind though...would have hated to keep a jumping Broad or a thumping Cook...

 

[Daemon]

would have hated to keep a jumping Broad

:sad:

 

[Jono]

Sub continental players can chuck it, other guys can't.

 

[honestbharani]

Not if you were using the law of bloody common sense:

yeah.. like India are using with DRS.. Hey come on, practical experience > Technology..


btw, did you even read what Riggins said? Are you implying you agree with that view?

 

[weldone]

:sad:

 

[honestbharani]

The old law was the umpire's judgement so the only people who were chuckers were those the umpire called. There was no set amount you could bend your arm that I can recall.

Might wanna read up.. There were limits of 5 for spinners and 7.5 for fast bowlers and then did tests during the ICC Champions Trophy that showed everybody flexed it greater than those figures and they arrived at 15 as a consensus maximum.. Then again, what have facts gotta do with rants?



And for those of you who don't trust the technology on this one but believe the human eye is good enough (would LOVE to know how many of you are sure these are the ONLY guys who chuck or flex their elbow while bowling), how come the same argument ain't good enough when it comes to DRS?

 

[honestbharani]

It's a lot of fun bowling Murali-style, by bending the elbow and flicking the ball out of the gap between the thumb and index finger, as opposed to rolling it off the middle of the fingers. You can get some truly vicious spin that way.

yep.. that is why so many have got 800 test wickets.. oh wait!!!

 

[Son Of Coco]

yeah.. like India are using with DRS.. Hey come on, practical experience > Technology..


btw, did you even read what Riggins said? Are you implying you agree with that view?

No, I wasn't aware anything I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with what Riggins said.

I've never agreed with the blanket statement "all bowlers chucked under the old rule" though because, while I agree science has proven the old rule to be inadequate, I don't think the old limits were ever intended to stand up to modern day testing procedures where we can accurately measure exactly how much an arm bends to = >5 degrees. So I don't see any great value in working backwards from what we have now to apply it to bowlers under the old rule and state that they all threw.

I think it's quite clear that the old rule didn't come about in an era where science played a big part in determining the degree of flex allowed in a bowler's arm. If it looked dodgy then it was called as such. Even now, how many bowlers with what looks like a dodgy action have been picked up and tested and proven to be 10 degrees under the allowed limit when tested in the lab? I'd back not many, and that most were pushing the limit when they got into the lab.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use the science available, as if we didn't we'd have never found out Murali was ok. But I don't agree with labelling all bowlers chuckers 'under the old rule', as if there was a scientific basis for coming up with the previous limits in the first place. It's pretty clear they were arbitrary numbers that were never properly tested to begin with. I doubt those in charge of making the rules at the time ever intended bowlers with actions like Donald, McGrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Akhtar () to be able to be labelled 'chuckers' because they got their calculations wrong regarding how many degrees an arms bends in a normal action.

 

[Son Of Coco]

yep.. that is why so many have got 800 test wickets.. oh wait!!!

Don't think there's any need to get overly sensitive about it...oh, wait

For me to bowl "Murali-style" I have to chuck it as I don't have the same physical make-up as he does. When I do this it looks a bit like Murali, but I obviously throw it. I'd be no-balled in a game.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't think there's any need to get overly sensitive about it...oh, wait

For me to bowl "Murali-style" I have to chuck it as I don't have the same physical make-up as he does. When I do this it looks a bit like Murali, but I obviously throw it. I'd be no-balled in a game.

nah.. the Murali thing just irks me because the guy bowled with all those wires around him and even bowled with a weight on his elbow to ensure it didn't straighten... The amount of ignorance about him and his action beggars belief, tbh...

 

[weldone]

And for those of you who don't trust the technology on this one but believe the human eye is good enough (would LOVE to know how many of you are sure these are the ONLY guys who chuck or flex their elbow while bowling), how come the same argument ain't good enough when it comes to DRS?

Gold.

 

[G.I.Joe]

HB wins the thread.

 

[honestbharani]

No, I wasn't aware anything I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with what Riggins said.

That post of Migara that you were replying to, was a response to Riggins; post. Spot the connection.