Who has a better test bowling attack ?

[marc71178]

no its conceivable that if more people disagree with you, that you might actually be wrong!

Impossible tec, since he's already told us he knows more than the rest of us (and the rest of the cricket-following world) put together.

 

[Swervy]

I know, and it's possible to mark them all, believe me. I did think carefully before doing this. No spinner has an identical angle-of-axis, Giles is much more of a sidespinner than Croft, while Croft bowls with more topspin than Giles (which is why he typically gets a bit more loop and drift).

Giles is typically 38 (Croft 36) and Murali, believe it or not, is 84. Mushtaq is 95, Warne 82. I would suspect that MacGill will be over 100.
And I've just watched Dave Mohammad again for the first time in 6 months and I'll be surprised if he's not in the 80s at least.
Remember, though, I've only done this on an average of 6 deliveries, there could be many hidden secrets to discover yet.

A standard camera is 25 (1\40th of UltraMotion\4Sight!), the super-slo-mo ones in this footage I used are 75.

How have you obtained this 75fps footage for these players...when did Mushtaq last play with this speed of film recording him....or Croft for that matter.

Anyway, I dont know how you can accurately measure the revs per second on a ball using a tool which can only take 75 frames per second....

also you need to be taking a measurement for each bowler at exactly the same point in flight, as due to friction due to the air, the rotation would slow down further in flight the ball is, if you cant ensure that you would need to know that the wind direction and speed was the same for all bowlers.

Just too many things to take into account, especially from such a small sample of deliveries, to make judgements such as Mushy produces a mere 11 revs/second more than Murali (a difference of about 13%) when ,as I say there would be an error of at least 30% either way in your measurements

 

[tooextracool]

Not if the disagreements concern facts.
Because it doesn't matter how many people say "Ealham didn't bowl in the first 15 overs" when he did. And all the people that may say it are wrong.
It's not the same as "if 1,000,000,000 people say the sky's red, then it is", because the fact is, the sky is blue because everyone says it is. If everyone said the sky was coloured grhturbhnhsgs, then it would be!

except that there wouldnt be 1,000,000,000 who say that the sky is red when it isnt....there'd only be 1 person who would say so and he would for all accounts and purposes be considered an anomaly.

No, I can't - and you can just use the excuse that "he must be making it up" because it doesn't fit your ideals.

no its just hard to trust someone who says that the motera and perth wicket were significant turners.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I don't think anything, I know: that Mushtaq spins it more than Murali, Warne spins it for all intents and purposes the same amount as him and I highly suspect that MacGill spins it more than anyone, given that I've seen him turn it more than anyone. I've seen him pitch it shortish on the leg-stump edge of the pitch and miss off by quite some distance. I've seen Murali pitch it very short way outside off and spin it into the stumps. A breathtaking ball. But not turning as much as MacGill.

and as i've said before, you can only measure how much someone turns the ball on the same wicket. and both macgill and warne only turn it as much as you indicate on turners...murali turns it everywhere.

So which wristspinners are these, then?
And it makes no sense to say that wristspinners turn it much more than fingerspinners on turners and almost the same amount on non-turners. The ratio will be the same regardless of how big the numbers are.

sorry i mean 'finger spinners' there.
and ive never said that wrist spinners turn it far more than finger spinners on turners....

No, he wasn't. And he is, a very good batsman.

yet he was out twice(in 4 innings) to boje on non turners....if good batsmen dont get frustrated then why did sangakkara?

I'm not talking about his wicket-taking, I'm talking about his economy. And that was poor in all the first 5 innings.

and how does it matter? the fact is that he was taking wickets and with pollock at the other end being as mean as ever theres no problem with giving away a few runs at the other end is there?

 

[Richard]

Impossible tec, since he's already told us he knows more than the rest of us (and the rest of the cricket-following world) put together.

And if either of you thought it was a waste of time arguing with me you wouldn't have made all the 100s of posts doing so that you have.

 

[Richard]

How have you obtained this 75fps footage for these players...when did Mushtaq last play with this speed of film recording him....or Croft for that matter.

Mushtaq in Pakistan in 2000\01, that was the footage I used, but I could just as easily have used something from either of the last 2 seasons. Croft I used Sri Lanka in 2000\01 (and Giles too).

Anyway, I dont know how you can accurately measure the revs per second on a ball using a tool which can only take 75 frames per second....

If I didn't think I could do it I wouldn't have bothered trying.

also you need to be taking a measurement for each bowler at exactly the same point in flight, as due to friction due to the air, the rotation would slow down further in flight the ball is, if you cant ensure that you would need to know that the wind direction and speed was the same for all bowlers.

I know that, and I did try to make as many constants as I possibly could. Point of start\stop sample. Of course I can't be absolutely certain about exact windspeeds but generally I've used a game where there was negilable wind; sincerest apologies, naturally, if I've used a game where there was wind at 7 mph to compare to one of 13 mph.

Just too many things to take into account, especially from such a small sample of deliveries, to make judgements such as Mushy produces a mere 11 revs/second more than Murali (a difference of about 13%) when ,as I say there would be an error of at least 30% either way in your measurements

I don't think there would.
But as I say, if you'd seen me doing it I can't help thinking you'd probably have far less doubt that you clearly have.

 

[Richard]

except that there wouldnt be 1,000,000,000 who say that the sky is red when it isnt....there'd only be 1 person who would say so and he would for all accounts and purposes be considered an anomaly.

I know that perfectly well.
But if 1,000,000,000 people said the sky was red it would be. However, the colour that the sky is is most comonly called "blue" and hence that's why the sky is blue.

no its just hard to trust someone who says that the motera and perth wicket were significant turners.

Even though both of them were?
It's rather more obvious than "Ealham didn't at the death and hardly ever bowled in the first 15" when he quite clearly did at times and hardly ever did not respectively.

 

[Richard]

and as i've said before, you can only measure how much someone turns the ball on the same wicket. and both macgill and warne only turn it as much as you indicate on turners...murali turns it everywhere.

No, not so, MacGill can turn it far more than Muralitharan on comparable wickets. Warne can turn it every bit as much.

sorry i mean 'finger spinners' there.

So which fingerspinners have taken plenty of wickets at a good average playing regularly on non-turning wickets, then?

and ive never said that wrist spinners turn it far more than finger spinners on turners....

By saying "wristspinners only turn it marginally more on non-turners" you sound pretty well like you're implying that they turn it much more on turners.

yet he was out twice(in 4 innings) to boje on non turners....if good batsmen dont get frustrated then why did sangakkara?

He didn't get frustrated, he just played a poor shot, which all batsmen, no matter how good, do quite often.
The good ones score lots of runs in between, though.

and how does it matter? the fact is that he was taking wickets and with pollock at the other end being as mean as ever theres no problem with giving away a few runs at the other end is there?

It doesn't matter much, I've never said it did.
However, beyond question it would be better still if Ntini was taking wickets and going at just 2.9-an-over, while Pollock at the other end was going for 2.2.

 

[marc71178]

I know that, and I did try to make as many constants as I possibly could. Point of start\stop sample. Of course I can't be absolutely certain about exact windspeeds but generally I've used a game where there was negilable wind; sincerest apologies, naturally, if I've used a game where there was wind at 7 mph to compare to one of 13 mph.

Which is only of course about a 50% difference - that's hardly anything when trying to look at something so intricate.

 

[Richard]

Considering that it's not in the least unusual for cricket to be played in gusts of up to 50 mph it's hardly a significant difference.

 

[marc71178]

50% difference is big, no matter which way you look at it.

The difference between 7 and 13 is far more significant than that between 40 and 46.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not - it's not going to affect how quickly the revolution slows down.

 

[marc71178]

Even if it's revolving into the wind?

 

[Richard]

Why does it matter which direction the wind is blowing?
I'll have to check this with some tests of my own but I can't conceive a following wind will make any more or less difference than a wind in the face or from either side.
I'll also have to do some checks to see whether it actually makes a difference at all, by bowling with no wind and in a strong one.

 

[Mister Wright]

Why does it matter which direction the wind is blowing?
I'll have to check this with some tests of my own but I can't conceive a following wind will make any more or less difference than a wind in the face or from either side.
I'll also have to do some checks to see whether it actually makes a difference at all, by bowling with no wind and in a strong one.

HaHaHa! You don't need to do any checks, just use your brain, of course the direction and velocity of wind will have an effect on the bowling.

 

[Richard]

Will it?
How do we know, have we seen clear evidence that the ball turns more in certain wind-conditions?
Until we've actually looked at the thing rather than guessed at it, I don't think we do know at all.

 

[marc71178]

So you don't know the converse then.

It is logical that wind will make a difference to the ball's flight.

 

[Richard]

Oh, to the flight, of course it makes a difference, everyone knows that, but I don't think it'll make much difference to how quickly the revolution slows down.

 

[marc71178]

Oh "you don't think" - conclusive proof for me.

You cannot prove it has no effect, and fail to see how it can't - if the ball is spinning into the wind then that wind will slow it - likewise if spinning with, then the wind will increase it.

 

[Muddaser]

This is from Bob woolmers website about Tariq Mahmood (murali clone).

Tariq is working hard but has not had to change his action but is limited in his use of the Doosra which is similar as Murali's. Umar gul is off to see a back specialist as most of the treatment and rest has not worked.

BW Bob

--------

Tariq will not be able to bowl the doosra just like murali. Turns it more than murali though.