How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[neville cardus]

And I've seen plenty do plenty with it in all conditions.

This science, Richard, is not one with which you may take so broad a view; it is far from precise (at least, so far as the tragically limited bounds of our comprehension allow). We do not know precisely (or even to any degree approaching precisely) which conditions are conducive to aerial movement and which are not. To state, as you so naively do, that bowlers can swing it "in all conditions" is, frankly, rot epitomised.

If a good swing-bowler can't swing a ball, it's because the ball's not in the right condition (sometimes you just get "bad" balls - balls that no matter what you do and however new they are simply refuse to swing and all you can do is wait for another one) or because he's doing something wrong (swing is a complex thing

And yet you offer the sort of information (of which I have heard and read absolutely nothing before now) that gives one the distinct impression that you know all about this ostensibly "complex thing". How, may I ask?

and just the odd irregularity in your action can result in the ball refusing to do a thing because your seam-position isn't quite right - once you correct the error you'll get it to swing again). Not because the atmosphere isn't right.

Evidence?

Witness the fact that virtually everyone up and down the country in 2001 said "the balls we're using this season aren't swinging", borne-out by top swing-bowlers like Dominic Cork not swinging so much as 1 single delivery that I saw all Test summer. Then at the start of this season everyone said "it's really swinging this year". Witness the massive increase in run-scoring in the 2001 summer because of this.

I do not deny that the type of ball in use represents an imperative factor in the extent to which it shapes, for I have no evidence to the contrary; certainly, what (entirely non-scientific) evidence I do have seems to support your assertion. Some balls most definitely do swing more than others, while some offer no swing at all. Some conditions (as you have confessed) are more conducive to swing than others, while some, logically, aren't conducive to swing at all.

Kookaburras, especially when used in Australia, have never been swing-friendly balls, they deteriorate too quickly.

I know. Before my back gave in, I insisted obdurately on Dukes for the needy purposes of my demoniac away-swinger.

Not backing-down at all. I said cutters can be effective on any surface;

No, they cannot.

I said quality swing-bowlers can swing a ball in the right condition any time. I have moved not a jot on either.

Very silly.

 

[neville cardus]

Fleetwood-Smith the biggest spinner of the ball EVER?

'Tis said that Chuck ripped it more than Mailey.

 

[Richard]

This science, Richard, is not one with which you may take so broad a view; it is far from precise (at least, so far as the tragically limited bounds of our comprehension allow). We do not know precisely (or even to any degree approaching precisely) which conditions are conducive to aerial movement and which are not. To state, as you so naively do, that bowlers can swing it "in all conditions" is, frankly, rot epitomised.

We do know that the damper the air, the more conducive to swing - I do not see how anyone can deny that. The ball swings more easily at dusk than in afternoon; it swings more easily under overcast skies than clear ones.

And yet you offer the sort of information (of which I have heard and read absolutely nothing before now) that gives one the distinct impression that you know all about this ostensibly "complex thing". How, may I ask?

What have you never heard of before? You've never heard of bowlers talk of "bad balls" that just don't do what you normally expect one to?

I myself have experienced it - never mind heard others talk of it.

Evidence?

You've not seen people analyse bowling-actions and say "just a bit wrong there" then see shortly afterwards (perhaps after a break and a chat with the bowling-coach) the bowler correct that and start swinging the ball again?

I certainly have.

I do not deny that the type of ball in use represents an imperative factor in the extent to which it shapes, for I have no evidence to the contrary; certainly, what (entirely non-scientific) evidence I do have seems to support your assertion. Some balls most definitely do swing more than others, while some offer no swing at all. Some conditions (as you have confessed) are more conducive to swing than others, while some, logically, aren't conducive to swing at all.

There are some conditions which are more conducive than others. No conditions make swing an unattainable pipedream.

No, they cannot.

They can, I said why, too. You disagree? You feel there is any surface which makes spinning the ball a completely futile purpose, as the ball will never turn or cut?

 

[neville cardus]

We do know that the damper the air, the more conducive to swing - I do not see how anyone can deny that. The ball swings more easily at dusk than in afternoon; it swings more easily under overcast skies than clear ones.

How that answers the relevant quote is completely beyond me.

What have you never heard of before?

The contention that "all" conditions are conducive to swing bowling.

You've never heard of bowlers talk of "bad balls" that just don't do what you normally expect one to?

If you had read my post prior to responding to it, that question would have already been answered.

You've not seen people analyse bowling-actions and say "just a bit wrong there" then see shortly afterwards (perhaps after a break and a chat with the bowling-coach) the bowler correct that and start swinging the ball again?

I have seen plenty, Richard. I have been watching this game for more than a century. Indeed, with my authentic profusion of cricketing acumen (far superior to yours, I dare say), I can safely aver that your stubborn compartmentalisation of the art and science of swing bowling is drivel. There is far more to it than simply the sort of ball that you're using or your bowling action's kinklessness.

I certainly have.

Good for you.

There are some conditions which are more conducive than others. No conditions make swing an unattainable pipedream.

Evidence?

They can, I said why, too.

It was a totally inadequate explanation.

You disagree?

Is it not obvious?

You feel there is any surface which makes spinning the ball a completely futile purpose, as the ball will never turn or cut?

Well done. My stance is bald-faced now to both of us.

 

[archie mac]

Fleetwood-Smith the biggest spinner of the ball EVER?

Come off it!

Why would you dispute that? Tell us who is?

 

[nightprowler10]

Why would you dispute that? Tell us who is?

Why, Ashley Giles of course.

 

[SJS]

Why would you dispute that? Tell us who is?

I am convinced Richard has a time machine. I mean, how could he "know' all these unknown 'facts' otherwise.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Why would you dispute that? Tell us who is?

Ian Salisbury.

 

[Swervy]

And I've seen plenty do plenty with it in all conditions.

When have you seen this?

 

[archie mac]

Why, Ashley Giles of course.

I am convinced Richard has a time machine. I mean, how could he "know' all these unknown 'facts' otherwise.

Ian Salisbury

When have you seen this?

I have to admit he can be annoying on occasions, but still good value

 

[The Sean]

'Tis said that Chuck ripped it more than Mailey.

Old Arthur was once quoted as saying that he "never knew a bowler to turn it more than I" though I'm wondering how much he actually saw of Fleetwood Smith, or whether he made that comment before Chuck had made his wonderfully eccentric presence known to the cricketing world?

 

[Swervy]

I have to admit he can be annoying on occasions, but still good value

only because we don't have to pay to read what he says

 

[Richard]

Why would you dispute that? Tell us who is?

It makes no sense that one wristspinner would spin it more than any other has ever done. What did Fleetwood-Smith have that countless other wristspinners didn't? If someone could tell me that, maybe I might accept that he spun it more than anyone.

 

[neville cardus]

It makes no sense that one wristspinner would spin it more than any other has ever done.

Tripe. MacGill turns it more than Warne; Warne turns it more than Chawla; Chawla turns it more than Kumble; Kumble turns it more than me in my backyard endeavours. How does it make no sense?

 

[archie mac]

It makes no sense that one wristspinner would spin it more than any other has ever done. What did Fleetwood-Smith have that countless other wristspinners didn't? If someone could tell me that, maybe I might accept that he spun it more than anyone.

He was all about spinning the ball, and did not worry too much about where it pitched, which meant on his day he would be a world beater and on his off day he would look like a novice. The players who had played with Mailey (a big spinner of the ball) said FS spun it even more, and I remember O'Reilly writing no one spun it more in his life time. Good enough for me, but maybe not for some

 

[Richard]

How that answers the relevant quote is completely beyond me.

Because it says that there is no such thing as "swing-conducive" and "non-swing-conducive". It's a scale, not an on-off thing, and there is no point at which it becomes "zero".

The contention that "all" conditions are conducive to swing bowling.

That's not the contention at all, the contention is that there is no condition (of atmosphere) that completely prevents it.

If you had read my post prior to responding to it, that question would have already been answered.

It was fairly obviously a question-of-answer. I'm astonished if you've never heard of such a thing, because I not merely have heard others talk of it, but have experienced it myself.

I have seen plenty, Richard. I have been watching this game for more than a century. Indeed, with my authentic profusion of cricketing acumen (far superior to yours, I dare say), I can safely aver that your stubborn compartmentalisation of the art and science of swing bowling is drivel. There is far more to it than simply the sort of ball that you're using or your bowling action's kinklessness.

There is more to it, indeed. Where have I claimed there isn't? You've tried to compartmentalise far more than I have - I've emphasised the linear-scale side of things as opposed to the descrete-package one you seem to be putting forwards.

Evidence?

The fact that a good ball will swing, and has done for any number of bowlers with the required capabilities, regardless of anything else. Nothing will stop a bowler who does the right things with a ball in the right condition from attaining swing. Swing is the one weapon a bowler can never be stopped from using if he has the right cricket-ball.

It was a totally inadequate explanation. Well done. My stance is bald-faced now to both of us.

And I disagree. I feel it was an adaquete explanation of what I feel can occur.

 

[Richard]

I am convinced Richard has a time machine. I mean, how could he "know' all these unknown 'facts' otherwise.

They're not unknown, though.

 

[Richard]

Tripe. MacGill turns it more than Warne; Warne turns it more than Chawla; Chawla turns it more than Kumble; Kumble turns it more than me in my backyard endeavours. How does it make no sense?

Yes. MacGill spins it about as much as anyone could realistically do; Warne, of times, spins it as much.

 

[Richard]

He was all about spinning the ball, and did not worry too much about where it pitched, which meant on his day he would be a world beater and on his off day he would look like a novice. The players who had played with Mailey (a big spinner of the ball) said FS spun it even more, and I remember O'Reilly writing no one spun it more in his life time. Good enough for me, but maybe not for some

Nothing is good enough for me unless some sort of measurement is made. I don't trust the human eyes as much as some.

 

[JBH001]

He was all about spinning the ball, and did not worry too much about where it pitched, which meant on his day he would be a world beater and on his off day he would look like a novice. The players who had played with Mailey (a big spinner of the ball) said FS spun it even more, and I remember O'Reilly writing no one spun it more in his life time. Good enough for me, but maybe not for some

Still, it didnt help him not go for 298/1 off 98 overs, did it?