Topic: Broad's Spin On Things is Dated (Read 3653 times)

Mattsky · « **on:** May 29, 2014, 01:34:41 PM »

Thought-provoking piece on the general 'English' attitude of suspicion to the way other international teams innovate - in this case, in finger spin.

http://cricket-central.com/stuart-broad-spin-england-dated/

iand123 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 29, 2014, 04:03:18 PM »

I've got nothing wrong with what Broad said, if thats an English attitude then fair enough. The picture of ajmal that started all of this he is clearly over the 15 degrees mark, if thats not chucking it i don't know what is! Pretty certain i'd think that regardless of my nationality.

Got nothing wrong with innovation in cricket, i have a huge problem with chucking the ball though

MD2812 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 29, 2014, 04:08:10 PM »

Quote from: iand123 on May 29, 2014, 04:03:18 PM

The picture of ajmal that started all of this he is clearly over the 15 degrees mark,

Whilst I support Broad, and I hope that the drama this has caused may mean actions are closely looked at, a still picture on it's own is impossible to determine if illegal or not.

It's not a 15 degree bend, it's the flex or straightening. So you could bowl with a 90 degree bend in your arm, but during your delivery your elbow could not straighten more than 15 degrees. This would mean your arm could go to 75 degrees or 105 degrees but no more.

I still don't believe his Doosra is legal.

Apparently if an umpire suspects him of throwing they first are provided the video from his testing to see if they think his action is different from the testing situation. I suppose if they do they then report it. So far no FC umpires have reported him.

I wish the whole process was outlined by the ICC, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Manormanic · « **Reply #3 on:** May 29, 2014, 04:10:42 PM »

That's the thing; the Laws of the game are there for a reason and I don't believe that you can coach respect for them if it is clear at the very top level that they are being systematically flouted. #

For a while I almost bought into Muchi's "Oh my arm is just that way" argument - until footage emerged of him bowling leggies with a perfectly straight arm - but Ajmal, Samuels et al don't even have that paper thin excuse because they don't chuck every ball. So its no more or less than knowing cheating in my eyes.

MD2812 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 29, 2014, 04:14:15 PM »

I tried Murali's action and realised why his arm is bent. It's not a birth defect.

When he holds the ball, he rotates his wrist around clockwise (imagine turning a doorknob) as far as he can. It's very difficult to do this and keep a straight arm (try your arm by your side and your hand will move away from your hip)

I believe he may still have a double jointed shoulder or more flex in his shoulder though.

He could bowl with a straight arm i'm sure, but not with the way he holds the ball.

Manormanic · « **Reply #5 on:** May 29, 2014, 05:57:34 PM »

Exactly - birth defect or not, he COULD bowl within the laws of the game but CHOOSES not to do so.

Worst thing is, every time you criticise him - or Ajmal, or Shillingford, or Sennanayake etc - you get a load of muppets screaming offence because, well, its not that he's chucking the ball, its that you want to offended people of a certain creed/colour/nationality etc.

joeljonno · « **Reply #6 on:** May 29, 2014, 06:50:31 PM »

Just to be a bit controversial...

If batsmen can get away with nicking and not walking, why should bowlers always play within the law?

Sam · « **Reply #7 on:** May 29, 2014, 07:50:30 PM »

Quote from: Manormanic on May 29, 2014, 05:57:34 PM

Exactly - birth defect or not, he COULD bowl within the laws of the game but CHOOSES not to do so.

But did the exact same research into his action (before the rule change) also bring out information that about only 1% of international bowlers at the time (or something around that) were bowling within the laws of the game (of which I assume allowed what was supposedly minimal flex )?

MD2812 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 29, 2014, 08:22:02 PM »

Quote from: joeljonno on May 29, 2014, 06:50:31 PM

Just to be a bit controversial...

If batsmen can get away with nicking and not walking, why should bowlers always play within the law?

IMO they currently do.

It's up to the umpire to call both out.

The problem is how often does a batsman nick and not walk? Once a season? Tell Ajmal he's only allowed 1 Doosra a year for me :p

The other option is If a batsman walks after a nick, the bowler has to no ball himself if he bends too much in delivery.

Sam · « **Reply #9 on:** May 29, 2014, 08:40:32 PM »

I think the problem there is that not walking itself is not directly against the law whereas chucking is.

skip1973 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 29, 2014, 11:26:13 PM »

Read Pakpassion if you want a laugh about the Ajmal action.

Manormanic · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2014, 09:05:35 AM »

Quote from: Sam on May 29, 2014, 07:50:30 PM

But did the exact same research into his action (before the rule change) also bring out information that about only 1% of international bowlers at the time (or something around that) were bowling within the laws of the game (of which I assume allowed what was supposedly minimal flex )?

Hmmm, not exactly. The research - which used super slow motion cameras - showed that more than half (can't remember the exact figure) of all international bowlers had some flex in their arms during the delivery, though it was not quite so clear at the time in the rush to excuse Muchi that the majority of those "straightening" were from pace bowlers and were the arm straightening from hyper extended rather than a chucking motion.

Buzz · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2014, 01:56:27 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UUXgc1rLMQ

tim2000s · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2014, 02:21:19 PM »

Quote from: Buzz on May 30, 2014, 01:56:27 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UUXgc1rLMQ

What this proves is that bowling a leggie with an offie action and trying to hide it results in the arm being bent (and possibly straightened) as opposed to bowling leggies undisguised. Having said that, if he could bowl leggies like that, why did he ever bowl anything different???

Manormanic · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2014, 04:51:58 PM »

Quote from: tim2000s on May 30, 2014, 02:21:19 PM

What this proves is that bowling a leggie with an offie action and trying to hide it results in the arm being bent (and possibly straightened) as opposed to bowling leggies undisguised. Having said that, if he could bowl leggies like that, why did he ever bowl anything different???

What this proves is that he did not have the birth deformity claimed - the one which made it impossible for him to bowl with a straight arm.

As for why he didn't do this all the time, guess its easier to "pick" a leggie when you know which way its going, as opposed to the doosra-dart which was pretty much unpickable.

Author Topic: Broad's Spin On Things is Dated (Read 3653 times)

Mattsky

Broad's Spin On Things is Dated

iand123

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

MD2812

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Manormanic

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

MD2812

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Manormanic

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

joeljonno

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Sam

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

MD2812

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Sam

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

skip1973

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Manormanic

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Buzz

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

tim2000s

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated

Manormanic

Re: Broad�s Spin On Things is Dated