Can South AFrica end Australia's 13 year run as the best test team ?

[tooextracool]

In terms of lateral movement, there's no physical way someone bowling 90+mph is going to swing the ball as much as someone bowling much slower.

I couldnt argue with the Physics related to this matter as I really do not know much about the science. However, Srinath and Bond both bowled booming inswingers at a very high pace. Ive seen deliveries from Bond with the new ball that swung more than 3 stumps width (his return against Zimbabwe for one). If someone else could have swung the ball more in those conditions, Id like to hear it because I dont think ive ever seen anyone swing the ball even marginally more than that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Was referring to the series in Australia actually. Bowled with pace and venom and was arguably the best fast bowler on either side. I agree with your description of the kind of fast bowler that succeeds in Australia, and it fits Nel's description perfectly. If Morkely sorts out his accuracy issues, or if it just so happens that the moon is perfectly aligned with his star sign, he will be a real handful in Australian conditions.

Yeah agreed, Morkel seems tailor-made for Aussie conditions. Nel was reasonable last time, sure, but he was in-form too. Guys at his pace who hit the seam have always contributed well in Aus, though.

Although, saying that some swing bowlers have had success at the Gabba and Sydney and Im not really sure what the itinerary is like but it might depend on where they are playing exactly.

Like Zaheer Khan in '03? Was dependent on the weather. Brisbane was pretty wet for that whole Test and Sydney was, well, a run-feast. When not wet, Sydney and Brisbane get big scores like the rest of the grounds and the guys who've done well recently have been Clark, McGrath, Lee, etc. with suffocating accuracy. Swing bowlers who've done well in Aus like Damien Fleming, Craig McDermott, etc. have had excellent accuracy too. Without accuracy, it doesn't matter how much you swing the ball, you'll get spanked asn the two W's discovered on their last few trips.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reverse swing. Different fluid flows occur with an old ball on either side and this is where Bernoulli's Principle comes into play. Without going into too much detail, on a cricket ball which has a really rough side, essentially the difference in flows across both sides creates a pressure differential and subsequent change in air-speeds on either side, pushing it in the direction of the side with smoother flow (the shiny side). The faster you bowl, the later the swing. And, as I said above, the faster you bowl with convention swing, the less swing you'll get. Not none, less.

Theories are abound now that the "golf ball dimple" effect is behind a lot of reverse swing. The ball getting so roughed up that it creates liittle air pockets, which mean that the rough side actually travels through the air quicker than the smooth side.

 

[Top_Cat]

Theories are abound now that the "golf ball dimple" effect is behind a lot of reverse swing. The ball getting so roughed up that it creates liittle air pockets, which mean that the rough side actually travels through the air quicker than the smooth side.

Well, there's no consensus on it from what I've read but that would be more like more like a Magnus Effect which shouldn't come into it with pace bowling. A pace bowler can't put enough back-spin on a ball whereas a golf ball is spinning heaps. The Bernoulli-type effect I mentioned works with reverse swing because both sides have turbulent flow but one is just a lot more turbulent than the other.

Like I said though, I've done a lit search and recent work on this is rather thin on the ground.

 

[Top_Cat]

I couldnt argue with the Physics related to this matter as I really do not know much about the science. However, Srinath and Bond both bowled booming inswingers at a very high pace. Ive seen deliveries from Bond with the new ball that swung more than 3 stumps width (his return against Zimbabwe for one). If someone else could have swung the ball more in those conditions, Id like to hear it because I dont think ive ever seen anyone swing the ball even marginally more than that.

High pace with the new ball lessens the effect of conventional swing, not negates it completely. Without having seen the matches in question, knowing anything about the conditions, the type of ball, etc. I can't really say why that would occur. Generally-speaking, the research supports the contention that conventional swing has a speed range where the degree of lateral movement is optimal and any faster or slower than that lessens the chance the ball will swing. That's all the science can say with any certainty, really.

 

[tooextracool]

High pace with the new ball lessens the effect of conventional swing, not negates it completely. Without having seen the matches in question, knowing anything about the conditions, the type of ball, etc. I can't really say why that would occur. Generally-speaking, the research supports the contention that conventional swing has a speed range where the degree of lateral movement is optimal and any faster or slower than that lessens the chance the ball will swing. That's all the science can say with any certainty, really.

Here is the spell I was referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBS3M6-OxDc

During his first spell he was not just swinging full pitched up delieveries, but he was even getting his bouncers to go. The article that Swervy posted seems to suggest that pace bowlers over 80mph cant swing the ball considerably by conventional methods and that it might actually be reverse swing with the new ball, but I cant see how one side of the ball is roughed up enough within the first few overs to swing as much as that did. Its hard to get a good look at the direction of the seam in this case, but i doubt if it was anything other than conventional.

Javagal Srinath, Im sure you've seen plenty of spells from him where he got the ball to swing in a long way, certainly caused a lot of problems to Gary Kirsten IIRC.

 

[tooextracool]

Like Zaheer Khan in '03? Was dependent on the weather. Brisbane was pretty wet for that whole Test and Sydney was, well, a run-feast. When not wet, Sydney and Brisbane get big scores like the rest of the grounds and the guys who've done well recently have been Clark, McGrath, Lee, etc. with suffocating accuracy. Swing bowlers who've done well in Aus like Damien Fleming, Craig McDermott, etc. have had excellent accuracy too. Without accuracy, it doesn't matter how much you swing the ball, you'll get spanked asn the two W's discovered on their last few trips.

Sydney and Brisbane are generally run feasts. However, in addition to Zaheer swinging the ball for the small spell in between the rain intervals in 2003/04, Bracken had some success against the WI in 2005/06 and Ive heard plenty of rumors that the GABBA in general has been conducive for swing, especially from the staunch Hayden supporters in the past.
But yeah, swing bowlers in general have struggled in Australia recently, but tbh how many fast (swing or otherwise) bowlers have succeeded in Australia?A while ago, I posted that not very many fast bowlers outside of Australia have had any success in Australia recently, except for Ntini and Nel in conditions that were vastly different than usual, but this decade there hasnt been a single fast bowler that has left Australia with their reputation intact.

 

[Top_Cat]

Here is the spell I was referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBS3M6-OxDc

During his first spell he was not just swinging full pitched up delieveries, but he was even getting his bouncers to go. The article that Swervy posted seems to suggest that pace bowlers over 80mph cant swing the ball considerably by conventional methods and that it might actually be reverse swing with the new ball, but I cant see how one side of the ball is roughed up enough within the first few overs to swing as much as that did. Its hard to get a good look at the direction of the seam in this case, but i doubt if it was anything other than conventional.

Javagal Srinath, Im sure you've seen plenty of spells from him where he got the ball to swing in a long way, certainly caused a lot of problems to Gary Kirsten IIRC.

Oh look, you can certainly get plenty of swing bowling quick (and that spell from Bond had a few awfully quick deliveries in it which swung huge amounts for a new-ball) but if your main goal is to get maximum swing, you have to bowl slower. The thing is, the speed at which swing is optimal renders any usefulness of the swing moot because it's so damn slow any decent batsman will spank you.

That's the take-home message, really; more swing comes from slower bowling but it's really not useful against top-shelf players.

 

[Richard]

He started his career well on, IIRC, much more friendly pitches.

He certainly did, in Pakistan, but the odd thing is that I hear stories of him barely getting the ball to turn a jot on one of the best spinners' pitches you could hope for - ie, the Third Test in Kanpur in the recent-ish India series which ended 1-1.

 

[Richard]

It's physics, mate. Yes those blokes swung the ball but of the ones I've seen, the swing is usually quite late and it was the combination of a reasonable amount of swing + sheer pace that did for the batsmen they were bowling to. In terms of lateral movement, there's no physical way someone bowling 90+mph is going to swing the ball as much as someone bowling much slower.

People have tried many times to explain swing in terms of Magnus Effect which is wrong because it really only applies to drift in spin bowling; pace bowlers don't put enough back-spin on the ball for it to take effect. It actually depends on whether you're talking about conventional swing or reverse swing exactly what phenomenon comes into play. It's pretty difficult to find any recent work on this but in terms of conventional swing, it's been found years ago the optimum speed for gaining maximum swing is only about 80km/h. Quicker than that and the effect is gradually degraded proportionally with the speed (see Nature 303, 787-788 "Factors affecting cricket ball swing", Mehta et al). It's why quick bowlers who rely on swing are usually less effective with the new ball; the two W's were always considered better with the old ball and that's explained by....

Reverse swing. Different fluid flows occur with an old ball on either side and this is where Bernoulli's Principle comes into play. Without going into too much detail, on a cricket ball which has a really rough side, essentially the difference in flows across both sides creates a pressure differential and subsequent change in air-speeds on either side, pushing it in the direction of the side with smoother flow (the shiny side). The faster you bowl, the later the swing. And, as I said above, the faster you bowl with convention swing, the less swing you'll get. Not none, less.

I don't disagree with a word you say here - obviously there's an optimum pace for maximum amount of swing (I'd say I probably bowl pretty close to it TBH ) but maximum amount of swing isn't neccessarily what you need. You don't have to get it to go from a line to barely hit the cut strip to hitting off (as I occasionally can if if all goes well) to be effective. The point is that 140kph+ bowlers can easily swing the ball plenty enough to be dangerous, even if not as much as those bowling at, say, 80kph.

Relatively small amounts of swing at 140kph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger amounts at 100kph. I'm not trying to say that all that matters is getting as much swing as possible, not for a second.

 

[Uppercut]

It's funny how the type of swing labelled "conventional" is by far the less understood of the two types. I tried to find some info on its cause some time ago and found next to nothing. Reverse swing, on the other hand, can be recreated by putting duct tape on one side of a tennis ball and giving it a chuck.

 

[Jono]

...and then they got spanked at home 3-0 and that too without McGrath.

Aussies comfortably for mine.

Agree with your point, but spanked 3-0?

One test was as close to being a draw as anything, and Aus won the last test by 2 wickets (potentially one wicket if Langer didn't come out to bat).

Closer than a 3-0 scoreline suggests. Same with Australia's 2-0 scoreline back in Aus.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's funny how the type of swing labelled "conventional" is by far the less understood of the two types. I tried to find some info on its cause some time ago and found next to nothing. Reverse swing, on the other hand, can be recreated by putting duct tape on one side of a tennis ball and giving it a chuck.

My experience is the same and my Uni is signed up to a fair few journals!

The taped-up tennis ball was mooted as the reason for reverse swing (i.e. one side of he ball being heavier than the other due to loading one side up with saliva) but I think the science has moved away from that. The difference in turbulent flows model (as explained in terms of Bernoulli) is the theory du jour.

 

[Top_Cat]

Agree with your point, but spanked 3-0?

One test was as close to being a draw as anything, and Aus won the last test by 2 wickets (potentially one wicket if Langer didn't come out to bat).

Closer than a 3-0 scoreline suggests. Same with Australia's 2-0 scoreline back in Aus.

A Test series between Aus and SA should be close, though. That SA didn't take a Test off the Aussies and certainly didn't put the Aussies in a losing position (i.e. were rarely in the box seat, were always playing catch-up and had to play well just to stay in the game for the most part) is why people say it was a spanking. And losing 3-0 at home to a McGrath-less Aussies, even if the Tests were close, means that relative to the strengths of the two sides, it was a spanking.

 

[Uppercut]

My experience is the same and my Uni is signed up to a fair few journals!

The taped-up tennis ball was mooted as the reason for reverse swing (i.e. one side of he ball being heavier than the other due to loading one side up with saliva) but I think the science has moved away from that. The difference in turbulent flows model (as explained in terms of Bernoulli) is the theory du jour.

I thought it was because the taped side is considerably smoother and so experiences less turbulence. Which would be in keeping with the current reverse swing theory. May be wrong though.

 

[Top_Cat]

I thought it was because the taped side is considerably smoother and so experiences less turbulence. Which would be in keeping with the current reverse swing theory. May be wrong though.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear; one side being heavier than the other was the mooted theory, not what I think may be the case. The truthful answer is that I don't really know. Neither does anyone, it seems!

 

[tooextracool]

Oh look, you can certainly get plenty of swing bowling quick (and that spell from Bond had a few awfully quick deliveries in it which swung huge amounts for a new-ball) but if your main goal is to get maximum swing, you have to bowl slower. The thing is, the speed at which swing is optimal renders any usefulness of the swing moot because it's so damn slow any decent batsman will spank you.

That's the take-home message, really; more swing comes from slower bowling but it's really not useful against top-shelf players.

Yes this is true and it is something I levelled at Martin Bicknell recently. Swing is more likely to occur as slower pace than at higher paces but its not OTT for someone at 90 mph to swing the ball and swing it huge at high pace either.

 

[subshakerz]

A Test series between Aus and SA should be close, though. That SA didn't take a Test off the Aussies and certainly didn't put the Aussies in a losing position (i.e. were rarely in the box seat, were always playing catch-up and had to play well just to stay in the game for the most part) is why people say it was a spanking. And losing 3-0 at home to a McGrath-less Aussies, even if the Tests were close, means that relative to the strengths of the two sides, it was a spanking.

Regardless of whether one considers it a spanking or not, South Africa could easily have won test and drawn another. And since then, the form of the South African team has got better, the side is more settled and Smith is more confident in his role as captaincy, while Australia has lost not only McGrath but Warne as well. I really can't see Australia pulling off a comfortable series victory as they have in the past.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah i think people are seriously underestimating the sort of impact that Warne has had on SA since readmission. SA have simply collapsed even when hes bowled at his worst.

 

[Top_Cat]

Regardless of whether one considers it a spanking or not, South Africa could easily have won test and drawn another. And since then, the form of the South African team has got better, the side is more settled and Smith is more confident in his role as captaincy, while Australia has lost not only McGrath but Warne as well. I really can't see Australia pulling off a comfortable series victory as they have in the past.

Oh of course it won't be a comfortable win for the Aussies if they do win. I just think South Africa will have to bat very well to put the Aussies under enough pressure and I think without big contributions from Kallis, Smith or MacKenzie, the likes of Prince, De Villiers and Amla will have the pressure thrust firmly upon them and if I was an Aussie bowler, I'd be thinking I was on top in that situation.

And although Warne has been a huge reason for the Aussies' success against SA, last time 'round Lee and Clark also did plenty of damage. Strongly suspect they'll do well this time too. As I've said before, if SA get good starts from the openers, they'll go a long way towards winning the series. Without good starts, I think the Aussies will prosper. Steyn is SA's best chance for pace bowling success because he's in-form but he'll need help. If Morkel can get on the splices of the Aussie batsmen and Kallis or Nel bowls well in support, they'll be a handful.