Print

[Rob580]

There is no difference in angle - its just a trick of the camera.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not....

Round the wicket, if you're angling it in and then getting it to go away (in the way that Ishant is at the moment) it's far more difficult than someone being over the wicket and swinging it away. As it's a change in angle rather than a continuation / exaggeration of the angle the ball is already travelling at. 

You appreciate it if there's a Left Arm quick turning you inside out from round the wicket!

Also, so spinners going round or over the wicket makes no difference? Or if a bowler is left or right arm? Or wide of the crease vs close to the stumps? I could go on, but I really can't be bothered to waste my time.

[SLA]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not....

Round the wicket, if you're angling it in and then getting it to go away (in the way that Ishant is at the moment) it's far more difficult than someone being over the wicket and swinging it away. As it's a change in angle rather than a continuation / exaggeration of the angle the ball is already travelling at. 

You appreciate it if there's a Left Arm quick turning you inside out from round the wicket!

Also, so spinners going round or over the wicket makes no difference? Or if a bowler is left or right arm? Or wide of the crease vs close to the stumps? I could go on, but I really can't be bothered to waste my time.

I'm being completely and totally serious. "Angle" is just a myth. Round the wicket bowlers do not "angle it in". Over the wicket bowlers do not "angle it across". This is entirely a trick of the camera. If the camera was placed behind the bowlers arm, then you would see that there is no difference in the path the ball travels between the bowlers hand and the batsmen - you're being fooled by the placement of the camera relative to the release point into thinking you are seeing something that isn't actually happening.

If I showed you footage where we edited out the umpire and the bowlers end stumps, and placed the camera behind the bowler's arm, then you would be unable to tell me whether the bowler was bowling round the wicket or over the wicket - because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.


Don't worry - its a very, very common misunderstanding.

[WalkingWicket37]

I'm being completely and totally serious. "Angle" is just a myth. Round the wicket bowlers do not "angle it in". Over the wicket bowlers do not "angle it across". This is entirely a trick of the camera. If the camera was placed behind the bowlers arm, then you would see that there is no difference in the path the ball travels between the bowlers hand and the batsmen - you're being fooled by the placement of the camera relative to the release point into thinking you are seeing something that isn't actually happening.

If I showed you footage where we edited out the umpire and the bowlers end stumps, and placed the camera behind the bowler's arm, then you would be unable to tell me whether the bowler was bowling round the wicket or over the wicket - because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.


Don't worry - its a very, very common misunderstanding.

Interesting concept, though I totally disagree...
While you claim that you wouldn't be able to tell if you were bowling over or round the wicket, I think subtle changes of angle does make a difference. As a fellow slow bowler I thought you'd have understood this. If the ball isn't turning much subtle changes like changing pace and where on the crease you bowl from can make all the difference.

To disprove this theory I propose you bowl 4 "up and down" deliveries, not aiming to "do anything" with the ball, pitching the exact same place - say on a good length in line with middle stump.
Bowl 2 deliveries over the wicket and 2 deliveries round the wicket. One from wide of the crease and close to the stumps.
Assuming all the balls pitch and carry on straight, if your theory were correct all 4 would end up in the same place. However in reality they wont, will they?

[SLA]

If you think that a ball can be bowled at "an angle", the question you have to ask yourself, is an angle compared to what?
Compared to the camera angle? So what? Why would that affect the batsman?
Compared to the line between the stumps? So what? Why would that affect the batsman (other than for lbws, as I've already mentioned)?

[Rob580]

Don't worry - its a very, very common misunderstanding.

Wow. That's patronising.

Do teach me more, oh mighty wise oak.

[Rob580]

It's an angle relative to the batsman, which leads to a deception of where the ball will eventually end up.

It's very simple.

[SLA]

Interesting concept, though I totally disagree...
While you claim that you wouldn't be able to tell if you were bowling over or round the wicket, I think subtle changes of angle does make a difference. As a fellow slow bowler I thought you'd have understood this. If the ball isn't turning much subtle changes like changing pace and where on the crease you bowl from can make all the difference.

Changing angle in the delivery stride - ie unpredictably coming close or going wide of the stumps - is a valid tactic, because the batsman doesn't have time to change his set-up, so you are creating an angle between the direction of his set-up and the direction the ball will be coming from.

But switching from over to round the wicket does not achieve a change of angle relative to the set-up of the batsman, because the batsman is told by the umpire that you are switching sides, and thus (assuming he is over the age of 10 and vaguely knows what he's doing) switches his alignment to match.



"To disprove this theory I propose you bowl 4 "up and down" deliveries, not aiming to "do anything" with the ball, pitching the exact same place - say on a good length in line with middle stump.
Bowl 2 deliveries over the wicket and 2 deliveries round the wicket. One from wide of the crease and close to the stumps.
Assuming all the balls pitch and carry on straight, if your theory were correct all 4 would end up in the same place. However in reality they wont, will they?"

On the contrary, if I bowl 4 straight balls on the line of middle stump, then they will all hit middle stump by definition, because that's what "on the line of middle stump" means. I could bowl the ball from backward point, that fact would still be true.


What you mean is they wouldn't pitch on the line of middle stump as seen by the umpire. But that is only relevant for lbw decisions. It doesn't actually factor into how the batsman plays the ball at all.

[Biggie Smalls]

Re angle......look at release points of over the wicket vs round the wicket for the same bowler.  The hawkeye stuff with the coloured dots etc . There's  literally 1-3ft variation in release point.
I think ol Pythagoras needs a new protractor.

[SLA]

It's an angle relative to the batsman, which leads to a deception of where the ball will eventually end up.

It's very simple.

What do you mean "relative to the batsman"? A batsman is not a vector. This is a meaningless statement.

If you mean "relative to the alignment of the batsman's stance", then that is obviously false, because a batsman will alter the alignment of his stance depending on which side of the wicket the bowler is bowling from. This is about as basic as knowing which end of the bat to hold.

[SLA]

Re angle......look at release points of over the wicket vs round the wicket for the same bowler.  The hawkeye stuff with the coloured dots etc . There's  literally 1-3ft variation in release point.
I think ol Pythagoras needs a new protractor.

So what? A change in release point does not imply a change in angle. A change in angle relative to WHAT anyway?

There is a huge change in release point from the same bowler bowling at Trent Bridge and at Edgbaston - about 50 miles. Do you think that this also constitutes a change in angle?

[stevat]

What do you mean "relative to the batsman"? A batsman is not a vector. This is a meaningless statement.

If you mean "relative to the alignment of the batsman's stance", then that is obviously false, because a batsman will alter the alignment of his stance depending on which side of the wicket the bowler is bowling from. This is about as basic as knowing which end of the bat to hold.

I think I sort of get what you're saying, that ultimately a batsman lines himself up with the ball, so in a way it's only relevant where it comes from for lbw decisions.  Nevertheless, I've been triggered a few times and am conscious of lbw, especially against slower bowlers, so it factors into my thinking, and possibly other batsman's thinking as well.  For instance a leggie bowling at me from round the wicket, I'm a RHB, I know if I bat off leg, anything to my left I can kick away if I want to.

[Rob580]

This is about as basic as knowing which end of the bat to hold.

It's the fat end, isn't it? Not the skinny one.

I'm off to bang some nails into the wall with my forehead.

[SLA]

Wow. That's patronising.

Do teach me more, oh mighty wise oak.

I'm sorry if you found it insulting, but perhaps have a look at the patronising content of your previous post before you start playing the victim card. I'd hate for you to "waste your time" discussing this.

[SLA]

I think I sort of get what you're saying, that ultimately a batsman lines himself up with the ball, so in a way it's only relevant where it comes from for lbw decisions.  Nevertheless, I've been triggered a few times and am conscious of lbw, especially against slower bowlers, so it factors into my thinking, and possibly other batsman's thinking as well.  For instance a leggie bowling at me from round the wicket, I'm a RHB, I know if I bat off leg, anything to my left I can kick away if I want to.

Yes - this is basically what I'm saying. As I said, round the wicket vs over the wicket is relevant for lbw decisions, the consideration of which may or may not affect the way you play, particularly against spinners who are getting big turn on the ball.

But that's a specific set of circumstances. We were talking about seam bowlers, and my point was that assuming the batsman lines himself up with the bowler (which really should be a given for a professional batsman), then there is no intrinsic "angle" that the bowler bowls at.

[WalkingWicket37]

Okay, having read your subsequent reply to my idea @SLA I conclude you are correct that I didn't explain clearly enough. In my "experiment" I did mean the middle stump line "as seen by the umpire" or "in line with the stumps at the other end".

While this is an interesting debate that could go on for ages, I'm going to simply agree to disagree with you. I still maintain that you are changing the angle when coming round the wicket compared to over, as despite the batsman changing his alignment the angles will not be exactly the same.