Wisden's Greatest Post War England XI

[marc71178]

Erm no, it revealed common sense.

The frame speed you get from a TV picture videoed is not Foursight, that's for sure, so it's therefore nowhere near enough to tell anything (aside from the other points noted)

 

[Richard]

And of course you know that with such certainty having seen everything...

 

[marc71178]

I know enough about TVs and the like to know that it's extremely flawed.

As per usual you seem to think you know more about such things than anyone else.

 

[Richard]

Well it is a little surprising that no-one's ever tried to do such a thing (rather as it's a surprise that no-one's ever used more than a 25-f-p-s camera at cricket before West Indies-England) before.
Or rather, if they have that it's not been a renowned expert (like Simon Hughes).
But you don't, it seems, know as much about TVs as you seem to think. (Not just TVs, of course - they're actually a very minor part of the whole thing, and just an implement to capture the requistite data)

 

[marc71178]

It's not surprising that no-one's done it before, because everyone else realises it's not possible to do accurately.

 

[Richard]

How do they realise that without testing the limits the only way possibly - by trying?

 

[Swervy]

How do they realise that without testing the limits the only way possibly - by trying?

'they' wouldnt do it using the tools you have used..no way you can do those measurements at 25 frames per second accuratly..anyway..not gonna get into that again..I know you cant, everyone else would appear to know you cant (well those who have expressed any opinion on it)...if you wish to delude yourself Richard..go ahead...I just find the image of you infront of the TV in your room, pressing pause and counting some imaginary mark on the ball over and over again (I assume you have done these measurement for each bowler and a hefty sample of deliveries,bearing in mind the variations each spinner puts on each ball...Warne reputedly has about 15 or so different wrist positions which changes the amount of spin he gets,so you need to know that as well..so you need to quote each bowlers turns per second with some sort of spread measurement as well..oh and with the associated errors incorporated as well) highly amusing

 

[Richard]

How many times do I have to say this one - I DID NOT USE A TELEVISION. I used computer software.
Yes, of course I know Warne has lots of different leg-breaks, and I deliberately used stuff from the same pitch that turned as close to the same amount as possible. It's also very easy to pick even the slightest change in wrist-position from behind when up close and in super-slo-mo.
Look, any variable you can think of, I've covered it, there wouldn't be any point in the excercise if I hadn't.
Your only gripe can be this "there's bound to be x amount of error" stuff, and as I say I don't somehow think you'd be quite so sceptical had you seen the testing procedures.

 

[Swervy]

How many times do I have to say this one - I DID NOT USE A TELEVISION. I used computer software.
Yes, of course I know Warne has lots of different leg-breaks, and I deliberately used stuff from the same pitch that turned as close to the same amount as possible. It's also very easy to pick even the slightest change in wrist-position from behind when up close and in super-slo-mo.
Look, any variable you can think of, I've covered it, there wouldn't be any point in the excercise if I hadn't.
Your only gripe can be this "there's bound to be x amount of error" stuff, and as I say I don't somehow think you'd be quite so sceptical had you seen the testing procedures.

sorry..I must have missed when you said you didnt use anything videoed off TV.

All I can say is...what kind of life do you have Richard???
Instead of trying to measure totally useless things like this (whether you do it correctly or not)...why dont you get yourself a girlfriend or something

 

[Richard]

Look, don't get the idea I'm not trying!
You can discuss the matter with me in OT if you want! I've unwisely made a comment on the matter in one thread, somewhere.
And I'd not say it's totally useless, in fact I find it fascinating, a measurement of revs.
And yes, I did use videoed footage, but I did NOT use a TV and VCR to do the analysis, it would be a massive waste of effort. Far, far simpler to use a computer program.

 

[Swervy]

Look, don't get the idea I'm not trying!
You can discuss the matter with me in OT if you want! I've unwisely made a comment on the matter in one thread, somewhere.
And I'd not say it's totally useless, in fact I find it fascinating, a measurement of revs.
And yes, I did use videoed footage, but I did NOT use a TV and VCR to do the analysis, it would be a massive waste of effort. Far, far simpler to use a computer program.

it is useless though..what use is it? Number of revs per second means nothing if seam position is not good,and quite often spinners dont actally want huge amounts of spin and so will actually make an effort not to put as many revs on the ball as they can

 

[Richard]

Nonetheless I find it fascinating to investigate how much spin they do put on - and how often it varies (through accident and deliberate ploy, who knows which is which?).
The best wristspinners will put large amounts of revs some balls and less others - variation in movement is so important. Just like seamers will slightly cant the seam some balls to make it swing less than with a die-straight seam - you see Gillespie especially do that when the ball is really boomeranging around. Gough is excellent at it, too.
And revs-per-second doesn't matter if the seam-position isn't good - where on Earth do you get that one from? Ever taken much note of Murali's seam-position?! (Or, for that matter, MacGill's)
Seam-position isn't important for turn the way it is for seam and swing - all it does is helps disguise variations. Which is why Warne is so good. You can't possibly tell a huge break from the "slider" because the only change is in about 45-degrees wrist position.

 

[Swervy]

Nonetheless I find it fascinating to investigate how much spin they do put on - and how often it varies (through accident and deliberate ploy, who knows which is which?).
The best wristspinners will put large amounts of revs some balls and less others - variation in movement is so important. Just like seamers will slightly cant the seam some balls to make it swing less than with a die-straight seam - you see Gillespie especially do that when the ball is really boomeranging around. Gough is excellent at it, too.
And revs-per-second doesn't matter if the seam-position isn't good - where on Earth do you get that one from? Ever taken much note of Murali's seam-position?! (Or, for that matter, MacGill's)
Seam-position isn't important for turn the way it is for seam and swing - all it does is helps disguise variations. Which is why Warne is so good. You can't possibly tell a huge break from the "slider" because the only change is in about 45-degrees wrist position.

Seam position and spin???

The seam of the ball will give a lot more bite on the pitch...the aim of almost all spinners is to get the ball to pitch on the seam if they want to turn the ball a long way. Murali is one exception, who I think could spin a freshly polished snooker ball off Chris harris' shiney slap head

 

[Richard]

I hope not - Harrie would have to endure some pain to show that!
The whole point of my excercises is that I've put-paid to the "Murali spins it more than anyone else" theorem - he is a wristspinner - he has a double-joint, yes, but the fact that he uses an unorthodox technique evens that out.
With the same amount of spin, Murali turns it no more, no less with a scrambled seam.
Why it would appear likely that landing the ball on a rotating seam rather than landing no part on the seam would have an effect on the turn I don't know - it doesn't.
It's just far easier to impart spin when you're gripping the ball with a sidespin action, which is why most do it. Murali, of course, grips the ball in a totally different way so he doesn't need to.