• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

CW decides the greatest test spinner ever. 43 names: Countdown/Rankings thread

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I never argued whether he was chucking or not.... I said be careful of using still shot 2D photos. Which you then provided more and more of to prove he was chucking. You will not convince me that 2 or 3 photos is enough to show that the player was chucking; because those images can be misleading. If you start showing me multiple photos, particularly from multiple angles yes that begins to provide enough evidence. And that reasoning is not specious in anyway.
You haven't provided a convincing case as to why those particular photos with the separation that should address concerns about 'concealed angles' are misleading. It's specious because you're going out of your way to find things that might​ be wrong, and you're also struggling slightly with the premise which is to show extension occurred, not gain a magnitude. How many angles would be good for you then? I have two studies on hand that evaluated bowling actions, one used eight cameras and the other just two. And these were used to estimate the magnitude of the extension to within a degree.
 
Last edited:

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You haven't provided a convincing case as to why those particular photos with the separation that should address concerns about 'concealed angles' are misleading. It's specious because you're going out of your way to find things that might​ be wrong, and you're also struggling slightly with the premise which is to show extension occurred, not gain a magnitude. How many angles would be good for you then? I have two studies on hand that evaluated illegal actions, once used eight cameras and the other just two.
Need at least 2 angles (ideally 3) far enough apart, and probably 3 or 4 photos from each to show the arm and body action going through. This would probably give a clear indication of whether chucking was probably happening. And to be clear in at least a semi-synchronized manner.
 
Last edited:

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Need at least 2 angles (ideally 3) far enough apart, and probably 3 or 4 photos from each to show the arm and body action going through. This would probably give a clear indication of whether chucking was probably happening. And to be clear in at least a semi-synchronized manner.
So conveniently a little more than what you've already been presented with. If you want more then the videos are here and here. It is telling that the standard of proof you claim to require is about the same as the one that it actually used to measure the angle to a fair degree of precision, above what is needed to show extension is merely happening, so once again you are falling for overprecision. Also 'arm and body action going through' is pretty meaningless considering that this only deals with changes in elbow angle during the circumduction of the arm mainly between horizontal and delivery. The body's got nothing to do with it.
 

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So conveniently a little more than what you've already been presented with. If you want more then the videos are here and here. It is telling that the standard of proof you claim to require is about the same as the one that it actually used to measure the angle to a fair degree of precision, above what is needed to show extension is merely happening, so once again you are falling for overprecision. Also 'arm and body action going through' is pretty meaningless considering that this only deals with changes in elbow angle during the circumduction of the arm mainly between horizontal and delivery. The body's got nothing to do with it.
But I'm not arguing about whether a particular player is chucking; This started initially from a single angular view of 2 photos of before and after and I said be cautious..... that is it. Why did I say this, because the appearance in single frame photos of dynamic movements can create deception. Somehow this has been construed into me being specious and requiring over-precision. As I said if you think 2 is enough so be it... I don't.
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
I never argued whether he was chucking or not.... I said be careful of using still shot 2D photos. Which you then provided more and more of to prove he was chucking. You will not convince me that 2 or 3 photos is enough to show that the player was chucking; because those images can be misleading. If you start showing me multiple photos, particularly from multiple angles yes that begins to provide enough evidence. And that reasoning is not specious in anyway.
And I'd argue those images are enough, if the positioning arm with respect to the camera is correct. And the fact that there is not necessarily an easy hard-and-fast way of poving this does not rule out that this might be the case.

Your saying: 'The images can be misleading. The images can be misleading. The images can be misleading,' is in my judgment not a strong enough objection based on the level of evidence of what we are want to show: 'the arm straightened',
Particularly as you have changed your argument ever so subtly: you originally said:

be careful of using 2D pictures to try determine this sort of thing
Nowt qualifying it with numbers or angles or anything; just simply use of 2D pictures.

And perhaps I am guilty of reading too much into things, but given the context of the previous discussion and that I was arguing against a cited method for proving that someone doesn't chuck doesn't necessarily work, your 'caution' came very much across, 'we need this level of technology to prove this; lesser methods can't' which does not strike me as a good argument, hence my saying that it was something said to simply dismiss arguments. You caution comes across as a dismissal of using 2D pictures, which I argue is ill-founded.

And, I also referred to the fact that I was going off more than what I'd posted when I replied to you. The photos are more of an abstract for what I was referring to.

Perhaps it was a mistake not to, but I'll now post a link to the documentary at the correct moment:
https://youtu.be/YrI84uLwsfw?t=3303
And to the third piece of footage:
https://youtu.be/z29yKeqfpYo?t=199
 
Last edited:

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And I'd argue it is, if the positioning arm with respect to the camera is correct.

Your saying: 'The images can be misleading. The images can be misleading. The images can be misleading,' is in my judgment not a strong enough objection based on the level of evidence of what we are want to show: 'the arm straightened',
Particularly as you have changed your argument ever so subtly: you originally said:

Nowt qualifying it with numbers or angles or anything; just simply use of 2D pictures.
Look I should have possibly said single shot before and after photos could be misleading.... I did not realize I was making an apparently big issue. 3D work is of course based of '2D still photos' from multiple angles.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You're simply needlessly cautious with your required level of precision. Experts in the field think 2 synchronised high speed cameras are sufficient to measure within a degree, so why isn't it reasonable that two unsynchronised high speed cameras can show whether extension has occurred at all, as long as they are at angles which show the initial flex? Or even one camera at the right angle? It's all well talking about dynamic movements but we are dealing with the elbow, which only works in one plane, in a situation where the hand has to head in a particular direction to release the ball. The opportunities for deception aren't that wide. I have some opinion about what may be deceptive in making a qualitative analysis of an action but where there is a clear flexion I think it's hard to make this argument. As I said, spade-looking objects may indeed be spades.
 

Coronis

International Coach
All this ****ing **** in this thread almost made me miss Laker’s writeup, quality stuff mrmister.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
4th. Clarrie Grimmett, 519 points





Featured on 33 of 35 lists
Highest finish: 1st (1 time)
Ranking within spin discipline: 3rd of 16 (Leg Break Googly)
Test WPM ranking: 2nd of 43 (5.84)



Grimmett finishes at the 4th greatest spinner and 3rd greatest leggie. He is the first person to appear who actually came first on a list, achieving it once.

Like so many other spinners of the 20s he didn't make his test debut til very late in life, being 34. He still fit in a tremendous test career spanning 11 years and 37 tests. He claimed 216 test wickets in all, at nearly 6 per game(exactly 6 if you include a match he didn't bowl in). This puts him firmly at number 2 for this countdown. But more on this later. He was the first ever bowler to reach 200 test wickets and held onto the aggregate test record for 16 years. He averaged 24, took 21 five fers(his rate of five fers per test was about the rate at which Bradman scored centuries) and went for a little over 2 runs per over. This earned him the nickname the Miser, in contrast to Mailey's millionaire. Grimmett despised giving away runs. His superb accuracy meant he hardly ever did. Considering he bowled a lot of test deliveries to Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Headley, so this was no small effort. The pitches around Grimmett's time were also perhaps the most helpful to batsman that they ever were. Grit and determination got Grimmett his rewards.


Alongside the nickname Miser, he was also known by some as Scarlet, Grum, The Gnome and the Fox. Quite an array of aliases. He always bowled with a cap on. Grimmett took an 11 fer in his first test. He took 29 wickets in the famous 1930 series, quietly going about his business as Bradman took all the fame and glory. At the time this was a record for a series in England. There is also this quote I love about him: He was wonderfully accurate because he was endowed with that special physical co-ordination that not even endless practice can turn into international class. It so happened that he did also practise endlessly.


He possessed leg breaks, toppies, and a googly but his best ball was the flipper. On the doped up pitches of the 30s that didn't take much spin the flipper was a deadly weapon for Grimmett. He used to snap his finger upon release of it and batsman caught onto this. So to keep batsman guessing he decided to snap the fingers on his left hand when bowling a leg break. Grimmett's WPM of nearly 6 was quite something. Gregory was the only real lasting Australian pace name of the time he had to share wickets with, but he bowled a lot of matches with his partner in crime, and the yet to be be featured on this list ATG leggie O'Reilly.

He averaged about 24 both home and away, took 77 wickets in 10 tests against SA at 17 and averaged 15 against the Windies. Against the star-studded England it shot out a bit to 32, but he still took 106 ashes wickets at nearly 5 per test. His best years came in 1931 and 1936, when he took 41 scalps from 7 tests @ 18 and 33 wickets from just 3 tests @ 11. After the latter he controversially never played another test, the cause of much debate years later. On one hand he was in his mid 40s, but on the other hand his replacement Fleetwood-Smith was a flop and Grimmett was still taking buckets of wickets before his dumping. Who knows what the right call was. With WW2 breaking out soon after he didn't miss too much test cricket, so it doesn't matter that much. He achieved so much in his 37 tests yet still ranks in as only the 3rd best Aussie leggie. Damn.
 
Last edited:

Engle

State Vice-Captain
With a Resume like that, it's hard to believe that Grimmett was upstaged by his LBG partner
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah the circumstances of O'Reilly winning would be dodgy, but he's not necessarily undeserving. Similar case to Sobers/Bradman in the CW50 2.0
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yea it would be peak CW to elect the bowler who Bradman rated highest as their number 1 spinner. I wouldn't be against it at all.
 

Top