How good a bowler was Dennis Lillee?

[neville cardus]

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".

I've seen it at "zero".

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

Hence, all conditions are conducive to swing.

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.

Twaddle.

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.

If you're going to respond to my posts, you need to pay a touch more attention to their content. An example, anyway, of the compartmentalisation of which you are guilty: "But if the ball is in the right condition, a good swing-bowler will swing it regardless of any of these [atmospheric conditions]."

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.

Atmospherics will.

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

It cannot be viewed as "adaquete [sic]" without proper, verifiable substantiation.

 

[neville cardus]

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

Why, then, with such a vast difference between the turn obtained by MacGill and Kumble, is it impossible for there to be a vast difference between the biggest-ever turner and the runner-up?

 

[archie mac]

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

Yes my original point was that not even 'he' could spin it on that track. Apparently O'Reilly yelled out a cheer when one finally turned on the 2nd day

 

[The Sean]

Given it was such a road, our boys must have piled on the runs too...

Oh.

 

[archie mac]

Given it was such a road, our boys must have piled on the runs too...

Oh.

And they couldn't even blame the rain

 

[Matt79]

Nothing is good enough for me unless some sort of measurement is made.

Sorry, that fully deserves a

Oh what the hell, that gets:

 

[archie mac]

Sorry, that fully deserves a

Oh what the hell, that gets:

 

[Richard]

Sorry, that fully deserves a

Oh what the hell, that gets:

ing at such a comment deserves a far more than the comment does. It's well-known that it's not remotely possible for the naked-eye to judge revs on the ball, the only way to do it is with high-resolution film.

 

[Richard]

Why, then, with such a vast difference between the turn obtained by MacGill and Kumble, is it impossible for there to be a vast difference between the biggest-ever turner and the runner-up?

Because there's a limit to the amount the human arm can spin a ball. Many wristspinners come close to this limit.

 

[Richard]

I've seen it at "zero".

How? How is it possible for atmospheric conditions to completely stop a cricket-ball from swinging?

Hence, all conditions are conducive to swing.

No, all conditions have some degree of conduciveness to swing. No more, no less.

Twaddle.

No, it's not, I have. It's astonishing that someone wouldn't have.

If you're going to respond to my posts, you need to pay a touch more attention to their content. An example, anyway, of the compartmentalisation of which you are guilty: "But if the ball is in the right condition, a good swing-bowler will swing it regardless of any of these [atmospheric conditions]."

That's not compartmentalisation. Compartmentalisation would be saying "this is swing-friendly, this is quite swing-friendly, and this is completely-disallowing-of-swing". When in fact atmospherics are a scale which has no descrete points, and as far as swing-bowling is concerned, no end and no beginning. The condition of a ball and the calbre of bowling-actions are another thing entirely: it's possible to have a perfect seam-position, and if you don't come close to this you won't swing cricket-balls; and the condition of a cricket-ball is not something that can be quantified.

Atmospherics will.

How so? No-one even completely knows why a cricket-ball swings, therefore no-one can know for certain that atmospherics can stop it doing so completely.

It cannot be viewed as "adaquete [sic]" without proper, verifiable substantiation.

And I feel it had said substantiation.

 

[Swervy]

How so? No-one even completely knows why a cricket-ball swings, therefore no-one can know for certain that atmospherics can stop it doing so completely.

erm ..are you sure about that. I mean, yeah, no-one completely knows everything about everything (apart from you of course), but I think there is enough knowledge about aerodynamics in this world yo have about as complete a picture as we can

 

[Richard]

I've seen not a shred of evidence to support the theory that a brand-new high-class swinging cricket-ball, in the hand of a quality swing-bowler, can be completely stopped from swinging purely by atmospheric conditions.

 

[silentstriker]

I've seen not a shred of evidence to support the theory that a brand-new high-class swinging cricket-ball, in the hand of a quality swing-bowler, can be completely stopped from swinging purely by atmospheric conditions.

The ball would not swing in a vacuum. Thefore it is the atmospheric conditions, properly utilized by the bowler and the condition of the ball, that are responsible for the swing.

 

[Richard]

A vacuum isn't atmosphere, though, is it?

 

[Swervy]

The ball would not swing in a vacuum.

Maybe if Johnny Dyson bowled it it would........





sorry

 

[TheGreatAusie]

Accidently selected mediocre, assume it went into Good. Apologies!

 

[Engle]

I've seen not a shred of evidence to support the theory that a brand-new high-class swinging cricket-ball, in the hand of a quality swing-bowler, can be completely stopped from swinging purely by atmospheric conditions.

Talk to Massie

 

[neville cardus]

Because there's a limit to the amount the human arm can spin a ball.

The human arm does not spin a cricket ball.

Many wristspinners come close to this limit.

You know what this limit is, then?

 

[neville cardus]

How? How is it possible for atmospheric conditions to completely stop a cricket-ball from swinging?

I don't know -- which makes total sense, given that that wasn't my point. I was not talking only about atmospherics; neither, I presume, were you.

No, all conditions have some degree of conduciveness to swing.

Hence, all conditions are conducive to swing.

descrete

That word means what, exactly?

How so? No-one even completely knows why a cricket-ball swings, therefore no-one can know for certain that atmospherics can stop it doing so completely.

You've never seen the same ball which swings in one set of conditions fail to do so in another?

And I feel it had said substantiation.

You feel wrongly.

 

[neville cardus]

I've seen not a shred of evidence to support the theory that a brand-new high-class swinging cricket-ball, in the hand of a quality swing-bowler, can be completely stopped from swinging purely by atmospheric conditions.

Try reading a swing bowler's autobiography.