• 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.

Who has a better test bowling attack ?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
of course there are errors in all measurements like this...but with proper equipment the errors can be reduced a hell of a lot.

Now the other day,they showed a ball travelling down the wicket with that 1000(?) frame per second..and even then it was nigh on impossible to know for certain what one revolution of the ball was....2 problems i could see happening...either 1) the seam for a spinner doesnt wobble,and so it was impossible to actually pick out a mark on the ball to take as a reference for counting 2) the seam does wobble and so it is even harder to see what one revolution of the ball constitutes, becuse even if there was a mark on the ball for reference, it is continually changing its position relative to the imaginary line drawn from the bowlers fingers to the point of pitching ie the axis around which the ball is revolving

Only with a specially marked ball with extremely fast film could you get an accurate enough figure to quote with regards to the revs per sec figure for each bowler for it to mean anything. (When we are talking about figures of 80 revs per sec,you cant really have much more than a 5% error..any more imakes it meaningless)
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I'm fairly convinced you'd be less sceptical if you'd seen me do the thing.
Doubt if you want to, it's up to you - but don't throw all this confusion into the tooextracool debate, because there's no question Mushtaq and Warne spin it as much as Murali, something he denies.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I'm fairly convinced you'd be less sceptical if you'd seen me do the thing.
Doubt if you want to, it's up to you - but don't throw all this confusion into the tooextracool debate, because there's no question Mushtaq and Warne spin it as much as Murali, something he denies.
but this is what I am saying....there is doubt, if we go by your measurements..so you cant completely dismiss the notion that tec is actually right on that one.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
He isn't - it's not like I need that to make a pretty good guess, I just brought it in because I believe it's a useful way to make tooextracool look a bit silly yet again.
You just have to spoil things. :dry: :@
 

Top