Print

[Mister Le Chiffre]

Kohli reaches 6000 test runs with a streaky edge drive to third man. Decent player this chap

[Biggie Smalls]

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?

Relative to what ? Well , relative to the other release point.
As a batsman you can only adjust your angle in stance so much . As a batsman changes angle of stance ,to accommodate the change in angle of the bowler , the angle of the batsmans stance relative to the angle of the stumps changes too.  Ie / a batsman opens his stance to a left arm over bowler.....he is now relatively squarer on to the stumps. Rhe angle of the wooden thing he is trying to protect has changed , it it more exposed or less exposed compared to when he is side on in his stance.
Another thing is the wider on the crease a bowler goes the more a batsman cannot cover the change in angle without dramatically changing their stance , again , you can only do so much of this before you morph into shiv chanderpaul and suddenly need to modify your whole technique to compemsate.
I'll take the wisdom of 100s of thousands of cricketers for 100s of years over your 'revolutionary' point of view.

[Rob580]

I can see what you're saying, still don't agree, but I *think* I know what you're getting at.

Lets all agree to disagree, my point was more along the fact that a ball is more difficult to face if it changes direction (going from right t left in your perception, then the other) rather than if the ball is already going from right to left in your vision, but the movement (swing, seam, whatever) exaggerates that direction.

Kiss and make up? 

[Biggie Smalls]

Instead of kiss and make up , how about we give SLA the first annual Felix Tito award ?

[csnew]

Desperate times when jennings is being handed the ball

[northernboy1987]

Rumor is Bairstow is going to share the second new ball with Anderson

[rickjames]

Desperate times when jennings is being handed the ball

Hand me my noose

[SLA]

Relative to what ? Well , relative to the other release point.
As a batsman you can only adjust your angle in stance so much . As a batsman changes angle of stance ,to accommodate the change in angle of the bowler , the angle of the batsmans stance relative to the angle of the stumps changes too.  Ie / a batsman opens his stance to a left arm over bowler.....he is now relatively squarer on to the stumps. Rhe angle of the wooden thing he is trying to protect has changed , it it more exposed or less exposed compared to when he is side on in his stance.
Another thing is the wider on the crease a bowler goes the more a batsman cannot cover the change in angle without dramatically changing their stance , again , you can only do so much of this before you morph into shiv chanderpaul and suddenly need to modify your whole technique to compemsate.
I'll take the wisdom of 100s of thousands of cricketers for 100s of years over your 'revolutionary' point of view.

Its not really revolutionary, its just taking the time to actually think through the logic and the geometry rather than just swallowing what you are told unthinkingly. Batsmen seem perfectly able to change the angle of their batting stance by 180 degrees at the end of each over, so I don't see why changing it by 5 degrees or so every time the bowler switches from over to round the wicket should be even remotely challenging - and 5-10 degrees isn't going to make much difference to the angle of the stumps behind you.


Cricket, like many sports, has a lot of "well-known facts" that are actually baseless myths that are simply repeated from one player to the next, like "never run on a misfield" or "never play against the spin", "left-handers are always strong square of the wicket", or "the best batsman should always bat at 3".

[csnew]

Kohli reaches 6000 test runs with a streaky edge drive to third man. Decent player this chap

Rubbish player! can't play the moving ball, can't bat in english conditions with that technique

[Biggie Smalls]

Its not really revolutionary, its just taking the time to actually think through the logic and the geometry rather than just swallowing what you are told unthinkingly. Batsmen seem perfectly able to change the angle of their batting stance by 180 degrees at the end of each over, so I don't see why changing it by 5 degrees or so every time the bowler switches from over to round the wicket should be even remotely challenging - and 5-10 degrees isn't going to make much difference to the angle of the stumps behind you.


Cricket, like many sports, has a lot of "well-known facts" that are actually baseless myths that are simply repeated from one player to the next, like "never run on a misfield" or "never play against the spin", "left-handers are always strong square of the wicket", or "the best batsman should always bat at 3".

Wow.
Its very disingenuous to say a batsman changes angle of stance by 180 degrees each over.....relative to all other factors the change in angle is only as different as the chamge between bowlers arm, over/round the wicket, release point etc. The stumps , crease marks etc are mirrored ar both ends.
Im not talking about old wives tales or cricket folk wisdom here , I'm  talking plain common sense.  You are just trting to be a devils advocate for the sake of controversy or being disagreeable.
Im giving up on this , as the others have , and as i should have already .

[Biggie Smalls]

Its not really revolutionary, its just taking the time to actually think through the logic and the geometry rather than just swallowing what you are told unthinkingly. Batsmen seem perfectly able to change the angle of their batting stance by 180 degrees at the end of each over, so I don't see why changing it by 5 degrees or so every time the bowler switches from over to round the wicket should be even remotely challenging - and 5-10 degrees isn't going to make much difference to the angle of the stumps behind you.


Cricket, like many sports, has a lot of "well-known facts" that are actually baseless myths that are simply repeated from one player to the next, like "never run on a misfield" or "never play against the spin", "left-handers are always strong square of the wicket", or "the best batsman should always bat at 3".

Oh , just one last thing before i retire from this subject,  since you were being  pedantic re orhers comments.
You stated earlier that angles dont change . Now you state a change of angle of 5% or whatever shouldnt make a difference.
Its either no change or its 5%....it cant be both.
While we are talking whether 5% change in angle is insignificant.....ever seen a protractor used , overlayed on replays of balls from spinners that 'turn square'. The commentators always would remark how surprised they were that the degree of movement/spin was only 5-7% etc ....yet the ball spun hard and missed the bat etc.
Im now retiring from this debate.

[SLA]

Wow.
Its very disingenuous to say a batsman changes angle of stance by 180 degrees each over.....relative to all other factors the change in angle is only as different as the chamge between bowlers arm, over/round the wicket, release point etc. The stumps , crease marks etc are mirrored ar both ends.
Im not talking about old wives tales or cricket folk wisdom here , I'm  talking plain common sense.  You are just trting to be a devils advocate for the sake of controversy or being disagreeable.
Im giving up on this , as the others have , and as i should have already .

It was always thought of as "common sense" that the world was flat. "Common sense" is very often completely wrong.

I'm not playing devils advocate, I'm just explained to everyone here why something that many people believe about cricket is actually wrong. Most people have found this an interesting discussion and have at least partly understood the point I'm making. Some people have agreed to disagree, but no-one has actually managed to find a hole in my explanation - because there isn't one.

it is a difficult concept to get your head around. Even though I know for a fact that there is no change in angle between going over and going around the wicket, I still sometimes catch myself thinking "I'll angle this across him", before reminding myself that that is nonsense.

[SLA]

Oh , just one last thing before i retire from this subject,  since you were being  pedantic re orhers comments.
You stated earlier that angles dont change . Now you state a change of angle of 5% or whatever shouldnt make a difference.
Its either no change or its 5%....it cant be both.
While we are talking whether 5% change in angle is insignificant.....ever seen a protractor used , overlayed on replays of balls from spinners that 'turn square'. The commentators always would remark how surprised they were that the degree of movement/spin was only 5-7% etc ....yet the ball spun hard and missed the bat etc.
Im now retiring from this debate.

You're conflating two different things. Changing from round the wicket to over the wicket and vice versa does not change in angle between the path of the ball and the alignment of batsman, because any competent batsman changes his alignment to match where the bowler is going to be.

But there is, of course, a small change in angle relative to the alignment of the crease lines and the stumps. But this is small and irrelevant for anything other than lbw decisions. If you know your geometric calculus it;s straightforward to calculate the effective change in cross-section of the stumps by calculating the cross product between the vector width of the stumps and the path of the ball - I'm not going to do the maths but the answer is that a 5 degree change in angle results in a negligible change in cross-section.
 

[Duck Duck Mongoose]

You're conflating two different things. Changing from round the wicket to over the wicket and vice versa does not change in angle between the path of the ball and the alignment of batsman, because any competent batsman changes his alignment to match where the bowler is going to be.

But there is, of course, a small change in angle relative to the alignment of the crease lines and the stumps. But this is small and irrelevant for anything other than lbw decisions. If you know your geometric calculus it;s straightforward to calculate the effective change in cross-section of the stumps by calculating the cross product between the vector width of the stumps and the path of the ball - I'm not going to do the maths but the answer is that a 5 degree change in angle results in a negligible change in cross-section.

Maths or it's not true...

[FattusCattus]

Anyhoo - back to the Test Match............ anyone think we might be in for a long day in the field?