Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I'm fairly convinced you'd be less sceptical if you'd seen me do the thing.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)
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.