Aussies don't dope

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
King Boonen said:
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.
So let me see if I understand. A new ball shines equally on both sides. As the ball is used, it becomes rough on both sides, but the fielding team rubs one side consistently to keep the shine, so the difference in roughness between the two sides increases as the game goes on.

I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.
Yeah, that makes sense. In baseball, it's been established that hitters pick up cues from the pitcher before the ball leaves his hand, which allow them to guess the speed, location and movement (direction and degree of curve) of the ball. One of the secrets of pitching success is to develop a delivery that hides the ball until just before it's released. In fact, Jenny Finch, a former prominent woman softball pitcher, was able to make several elite major league hitters (we're talking future Hall of Famers) look like fools while striking them out. This was attributed to the very different release point and mechanics involved in throwing a softball (it's larger than a standard baseball or "hardball", and generally thrown underhand, not overhand), which didn't allow the hitters to guess anything about the pitch. Studies have also shown that major league hitters don't necessarily have particularly fast reaction times. What is essential is really sharp vision, again, to pick up those cues.

One of the biggest areas of study in baseball currently is spin, which determines how and where a ball will curve or break. Not only is every pitch in every major league game (totaling more than half a million in a single season) recorded with respect to speed, type (fastball, curve, cutter, slider, etc.), location and what the batter does or doesn't do with it, but spin rates and direction are also now being characterized. Today is opening day, the first day of the new Major League season, and in just this one day an enormous amount of data will be recorded, stored and analyzed. I don't think many people appreciate to what extent statisticians now determine the decisions made by baseball owners and management. I don't know if cricket is in the same situation?
You are wrong to compare too closely with baseball as this is a different game. In Test cricket it's in the rules that the same ball is used for up to 80 overs (six bowls to an over). As in tennis, the balls are supposed to last for a particualr period of time and new ones perform differently. Partly the game of cricket exploits the changing nature of the ball as it ages in use, becomes softer and is less fast. It's OK that it deteriorates and slows and thus alters what bowlers can do with it. What they are not supposed to do is alter its natural all-round deterioration by, for example, picking at it to roughen the seam or one side of the ball. I think a bit of polishing has always gone on and it's a matter of drawing the line at flagrant ball tampering to permit reverse swing. The bowling side is not supposed to mess about with it to allow that, even though it may happen naturally. That's where the cheating can come in. King Boonen is of course right in what he said. But in cricket they can't keep changing the ball for a new one like you say potentially happens in baseball.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
King Boonen said:
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.
So let me see if I understand. A new ball shines equally on both sides. As the ball is used, it becomes rough on both sides, but the fielding team rubs one side consistently to keep the shine, so the difference in roughness between the two sides increases as the game goes on.

I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.
Yeah, that makes sense. In baseball, it's been established that hitters pick up cues from the pitcher before the ball leaves his hand, which allow them to guess the speed, location and movement (direction and degree of curve) of the ball. One of the secrets of pitching success is to develop a delivery that hides the ball until just before it's released. In fact, Jenny Finch, a former prominent woman softball pitcher, was able to make several elite major league hitters (we're talking future Hall of Famers) look like fools while striking them out. This was attributed to the very different release point and mechanics involved in throwing a softball (it's larger than a standard baseball or "hardball", and generally thrown underhand, not overhand), which didn't allow the hitters to guess anything about the pitch. Studies have also shown that major league hitters don't necessarily have particularly fast reaction times. What is essential is really sharp vision, again, to pick up those cues.

One of the biggest areas of study in baseball currently is spin, which determines how and where a ball will curve or break. Not only is every pitch in every major league game (totaling more than half a million in a single season) recorded with respect to speed, type (fastball, curve, cutter, slider, etc.), location and what the batter does or doesn't do with it, but spin rates and direction are also now being characterized. Today is opening day, the first day of the new Major League season, and in just this one day an enormous amount of data will be recorded, stored and analyzed. I don't think many people appreciate to what extent statisticians now determine the decisions made by baseball owners and management. I don't know if cricket is in the same situation?
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
King Boonen said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/43584435

Bye bye.
Delay compared to player bans no doubt due to lawyers negotiating Boof's payoff and NDA

Sutherland refusing to resign will CA's board pull the trigger on his tenure? Aussies really need to clean house and start afresh
The ultimate failure was the press conference. Even in the face of video evidence they were still lying. It was an example of how bad their arrogance has become, they honestly thought this would blow over. The penalties how harsh but there was no other alternative, they had to go.
 
I fail to see the need for individual pressers by the three players - CA as usual have failed in their responsibilities - We have a culture in society in which we want to throw people into the bonfire - It must stop !
 
Re:

yaco said:
I fail to see the need for individual pressers by the three players - CA as usual have failed in their responsibilities - We have a culture in society in which we want to throw people into the bonfire - It must stop !
No, not really. It was blatant cheating which they attempted to cover up on the field, then lied about it afterwards. It’s a hard penalty but it’s the right one. I think Smith will come back in 6 months but right now they need to hold everyone to a year.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Merckx index said:
King Boonen said:
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.
So let me see if I understand. A new ball shines equally on both sides. As the ball is used, it becomes rough on both sides, but the fielding team rubs one side consistently to keep the shine, so the difference in roughness between the two sides increases as the game goes on.

I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.
Yeah, that makes sense. In baseball, it's been established that hitters pick up cues from the pitcher before the ball leaves his hand, which allow them to guess the speed, location and movement (direction and degree of curve) of the ball. One of the secrets of pitching success is to develop a delivery that hides the ball until just before it's released. In fact, Jenny Finch, a former prominent woman softball pitcher, was able to make several elite major league hitters (we're talking future Hall of Famers) look like fools while striking them out. This was attributed to the very different release point and mechanics involved in throwing a softball (it's larger than a standard baseball or "hardball", and generally thrown underhand, not overhand), which didn't allow the hitters to guess anything about the pitch. Studies have also shown that major league hitters don't necessarily have particularly fast reaction times. What is essential is really sharp vision, again, to pick up those cues.

One of the biggest areas of study in baseball currently is spin, which determines how and where a ball will curve or break. Not only is every pitch in every major league game (totaling more than half a million in a single season) recorded with respect to speed, type (fastball, curve, cutter, slider, etc.), location and what the batter does or doesn't do with it, but spin rates and direction are also now being characterized. Today is opening day, the first day of the new Major League season, and in just this one day an enormous amount of data will be recorded, stored and analyzed. I don't think many people appreciate to what extent statisticians now determine the decisions made by baseball owners and management. I don't know if cricket is in the same situation?
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
One of the interesting things about swing bowling is that "conventional" swing at the start of the innings is generated by having the shiny side of the ball on one side of the seam whereas "reverse" swing is generated by having the shiny side of the ball on the other side

Add to that that a cricket ball may swing a long way in cloudy/humid conditions whereas in clear/dry conditions it will swing less or not at all, and that some grounds are condusive to swing whereas others are not irrespective of the conditions, and it's really not surprising that swing bowling is seen as one of cricket's dark arts with a long history of controversy

Watching an expert swing bowler such as Jimmy Anderson who on his day can swing it both ways (a rare talent most bowlers can only swing it one way even at the highest level) is one of life's great pleasures
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
thehog said:
Merckx index said:
King Boonen said:
1) It's not asymmetric to start with but becomes so as it is used and the fielding team try to preserve the "shine" on one side of the ball in an attempt to influence its' properties. I believe that natural moisture from the field, spit and sweat are all acceptable to maintain a side of the ball but the deterioration has to be natural. They used to be allowed to rub the ball on a ground a long time ago but that was banned.
So let me see if I understand. A new ball shines equally on both sides. As the ball is used, it becomes rough on both sides, but the fielding team rubs one side consistently to keep the shine, so the difference in roughness between the two sides increases as the game goes on.

I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.

2) This is slightly above my pay grade but I believe the benefit of reverse swing is it happens late and in the opposite direction to that you would think by looking at the ball. As batsmen generally have to pre-empt a fast delivery and move their feet before the ball has left the hand, they will look at how the bowler is holding himself and the ball to determine what kind of delivery they will receive. Reverse swing makes this much more difficult.
Yeah, that makes sense. In baseball, it's been established that hitters pick up cues from the pitcher before the ball leaves his hand, which allow them to guess the speed, location and movement (direction and degree of curve) of the ball. One of the secrets of pitching success is to develop a delivery that hides the ball until just before it's released. In fact, Jenny Finch, a former prominent woman softball pitcher, was able to make several elite major league hitters (we're talking future Hall of Famers) look like fools while striking them out. This was attributed to the very different release point and mechanics involved in throwing a softball (it's larger than a standard baseball or "hardball", and generally thrown underhand, not overhand), which didn't allow the hitters to guess anything about the pitch. Studies have also shown that major league hitters don't necessarily have particularly fast reaction times. What is essential is really sharp vision, again, to pick up those cues.

One of the biggest areas of study in baseball currently is spin, which determines how and where a ball will curve or break. Not only is every pitch in every major league game (totaling more than half a million in a single season) recorded with respect to speed, type (fastball, curve, cutter, slider, etc.), location and what the batter does or doesn't do with it, but spin rates and direction are also now being characterized. Today is opening day, the first day of the new Major League season, and in just this one day an enormous amount of data will be recorded, stored and analyzed. I don't think many people appreciate to what extent statisticians now determine the decisions made by baseball owners and management. I don't know if cricket is in the same situation?
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
One of the interesting things about swing bowling is that "conventional" swing at the start of the innings is generated by having the shiny side of the ball on one side of the seam whereas "reverse" swing is generated by having the shiny side of the ball on the other side

Add to that that a cricket ball may swing a long way in cloudy/humid conditions whereas in clear/dry conditions it will swing less or not at all, and that some grounds are condusive to swing whereas others are not irrespective of the conditions, and it's really not surprising that swing bowling is seen as one of cricket's dark arts with a long history of controversy

Watching an expert swing bowler such as Jimmy Anderson who on his day can swing it both ways (a rare talent most bowlers can only swing it one way even at the highest level) is one of life's great pleasures
Fully agree, watching Anderson on an English pitch is a pleasure to see. That’s what caught out the Australians. They were getting reverse swing way too early, thus a cameraman was instructed to keep an eye on them between overs and ‘boom’ caught out. Stupid to use yellow sandpaper, not very discrete!
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
OK Hog, stop. The physics of how balls move through the air is far far more complex than this.

And spinners don't seek to land it on "the rough side". Their deception of batsman is a mix of varying pace, ball rotation speed and seam angle causing differences in the way the ball drops/dips, swings and the length at which it pitches, plus the natural variation of the ball's bounce off the wicket's surface. Balls with sideways spin will also vary in how much they deviate off the wicket depending on the exact amount of purchase they make on the wicket, which is variable depending on where it lands. And clever bowlers can make what appears to be a ball bowled with spin in one direction to actually not be spinning that way or indeed in the opposite direction.

Making a ball spin in these ways in not that hard to do. What's hard is being able to land them consistently accurately all day.
 
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
thehog said:
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
OK Hog, stop. The physics of how balls move through the air is far far more complex than this.

And spinners don't seek to land it on "the rough side". Their deception of batsman is a mix of varying pace, ball rotation speed and seam angle causing differences in the way the ball drops/dips, swings and the length at which it pitches, plus the natural variation of the ball's bounce off the wicket's surface. Balls with sideways spin will also vary in how much they deviate off the wicket depending on the exact amount of purchase they make on the wicket, which is variable depending on where it lands. And clever bowlers can make what appears to be a ball bowled with spin in one direction to actually not be spinning that way or indeed in the opposite direction.

Making a ball spin in these ways in not that hard to do. What's hard is being able to land them consistently accurately all day.

No I won’t stop, we are having a discussion with those who know nothing about cricket, yes we are going to initially keep it at a high level. Why do you always pretend to be know all? :cool:

Spin bowling has many factors some of which is not just the ball spinning. Warne would use the “rough” on a day 5 pitch as he would use an old ball to “stick” into the pitch by using the rough side with the seem to bring about turn less than spin. Got it?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
I find it strange, though, that this uncontrolled variability is allowed. In baseball, if there is the slightest scuff or imperfection on the ball, the umpire will replace it. Typically, several dozen balls are used for a game because of this. Pitchers do attempt to doctor the ball, and get away with it sometimes, but certainly not to the extent that the roughness seems to be allowed in cricket.
The natural degradation of the cricket ball is integral the game.

Keep in mind that the ball does not arrive at the batsman on the full, but rather it hits the ground (wicket/pitch) first. Cricket balls used in test matches cost ~$180 each, and there are about 2000 balls bowled on average in a test match. Typically about 6-8 balls are actually used during a test.

Indeed in cricket a ball that reaches the batsman on the full and over waist height is deemed "illegal" (in that it's called a "no-ball" meaning the batman cannot be dismissed by the bowler from such a ball, the ball must be re-bowled and a run is added to the batting team's score).

The ball gradually degrades and this introduces variation in the strategy and tactics of the game. It means significantly different types of bowlers are used, from very slow to very fast and each has different means of using their talents to dismiss the batsmen. And there are very successful bowlers of all types, slow, medium and fast.

So while the ball does degrade it does eventually get replaced with a new one if the batting team bats for long enough. The earliest that can happen is after 80 (6 ball) overs but the decision on that is up to the fielding team. Some prefer not to take a new ball and continue with the old one for quite a while.

Now while you are wondering about the variation in the condition of the ball, also keep in mind that the game is played on a grass covered but hard flat rolled wicket that experiences enormous variation during a game. During a game the wicket gradually dries out and degrades such that at the end of the game it can be significantly harder to bat on. At the start of the game it typically has a bit of extra moisture which often also makes it much trickier to bat on, until it dries out a bit. It also means that bowlers of different types come more into play at different times during the game, or bowlers need to use different bowling strategies and tactics. There are big differences in the state and condition and types of grasses, soils and preparation methods between grounds around the world. It's highly variable meaning that many locations mean different player's skills can come to the fore or be blunted.

It's all a part of the game.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
thehog said:
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
OK Hog, stop. The physics of how balls move through the air is far far more complex than this.

And spinners don't seek to land it on "the rough side". Their deception of batsman is a mix of varying pace, ball rotation speed and seam angle causing differences in the way the ball drops/dips, swings and the length at which it pitches, plus the natural variation of the ball's bounce off the wicket's surface. Balls with sideways spin will also vary in how much they deviate off the wicket depending on the exact amount of purchase they make on the wicket, which is variable depending on where it lands. And clever bowlers can make what appears to be a ball bowled with spin in one direction to actually not be spinning that way or indeed in the opposite direction.

Making a ball spin in these ways in not that hard to do. What's hard is being able to land them consistently accurately all day.

No I won’t stop, we are having a discussion with those who know nothing about cricket, yes we are going to initially keep it at a high level. Why do you always pretend to be know all? :cool:

Spin bowling has many factors some of which is not just the ball spinning. Warne would use the “rough” in a day 5 pitch as he would use an old ball to “stick” into the pitch by using the rough side with the seem to bring about turn less than spin. Got it?
As a former leg spin bowler (and captain, umpire, batsman and club official who played the game for 20 years), I do have a little understanding ;)
 
But you're right, cricket is a bit like quantum physics. Unless taught from birth it's pretty hard to explain.

Start by telling an American we have a sport played over 5 days and after all that there may still not be a result (yet such games can be the most exciting/intriguing).
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
And spinners don't seek to land it on "the rough side".
Warne would use the “rough” on a day 5 pitch as he would use an old ball to “stick” into the pitch by using the rough side with the seem to bring about turn less than spin. Got it?
Landing a ball in rough patches of the wicket is different to landing the ball on the rough side of the ball. The former a (good) bowler has control over, the latter much less so and they rely on probabilities. They can increase the probability of the latter when choosing to bowl such that the spin axis of the ball is not perpendicular to the plane of the ball's seam. In any case this is more likely to result in less deviation than landing on the seam but it will be more variable deviation as you can't predict what part of the ball will land on the wicket. It's all a part of the natural variation of being a spin bowler.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
thehog said:
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
OK Hog, stop. The physics of how balls move through the air is far far more complex than this.

And spinners don't seek to land it on "the rough side". Their deception of batsman is a mix of varying pace, ball rotation speed and seam angle causing differences in the way the ball drops/dips, swings and the length at which it pitches, plus the natural variation of the ball's bounce off the wicket's surface. Balls with sideways spin will also vary in how much they deviate off the wicket depending on the exact amount of purchase they make on the wicket, which is variable depending on where it lands. And clever bowlers can make what appears to be a ball bowled with spin in one direction to actually not be spinning that way or indeed in the opposite direction.

Making a ball spin in these ways in not that hard to do. What's hard is being able to land them consistently accurately all day.

No I won’t stop, we are having a discussion with those who know nothing about cricket, yes we are going to initially keep it at a high level. Why do you always pretend to be know all? :cool:

Spin bowling has many factors some of which is not just the ball spinning. Warne would use the “rough” on a day 5 pitch as he would use an old ball to “stick” into the pitch by using the rough side with the seem to bring about turn less than spin. Got it?
Spin bowling is in different ways as fascinating as swing bowling :razz:

For example good spin bowlers are able to get late drift on the ball before it bounces which makes them much harder to play. This physics of this drift is different to the physics of swing bowling because with a spinner the bowl is rotating perpendicular to the direction of travel (as opposed to rotating backwards but in line with the direction of travel for a swing bowler)

Btw - for those on here who are not cricket natives, and who may be getting the impression that some ofus are deliberately blinding you with science, here's a quick explainer ;)

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game
 
lol funny reading internet explanations of cricket.

As for the reasons to have multiple press conferences. For Bancroft and Smith it is the beginning of their rehabilitation of themselves and their public image (Bancroft was in Perth). Smith is distancing himself from Warner too with it being claimed they couldn't be put on the same flight together despite both heading for Sydney. Only the most ignorant wouldn't already know it's true but Warner is increasingly being projected as the bad guy. I still can't get over how bizarre it all is i.e. the path of least resistance was to chuck Bancroft under the bus. I think Smith is just too honest and couldn't have lived with himself if he did. The opportunity to take Warner down would have been compelling also.

Will be interesting to see how the team reacts to the psycho JL being made coach.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
thehog said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
thehog said:
One shiny side, one rough side means when the ball passes through the air the shiny side moves faster through the air and causes the ball to swing. There is also spin bowling in cricket which you use the rough side of the call to pitch it on the wicket, with more grip it’s spins out faster and at more extreme angles. Cricket is not as boring as most think.
OK Hog, stop. The physics of how balls move through the air is far far more complex than this.

And spinners don't seek to land it on "the rough side". Their deception of batsman is a mix of varying pace, ball rotation speed and seam angle causing differences in the way the ball drops/dips, swings and the length at which it pitches, plus the natural variation of the ball's bounce off the wicket's surface. Balls with sideways spin will also vary in how much they deviate off the wicket depending on the exact amount of purchase they make on the wicket, which is variable depending on where it lands. And clever bowlers can make what appears to be a ball bowled with spin in one direction to actually not be spinning that way or indeed in the opposite direction.

Making a ball spin in these ways in not that hard to do. What's hard is being able to land them consistently accurately all day.

No I won’t stop, we are having a discussion with those who know nothing about cricket, yes we are going to initially keep it at a high level. Why do you always pretend to be know all? :cool:

Spin bowling has many factors some of which is not just the ball spinning. Warne would use the “rough” in a day 5 pitch as he would use an old ball to “stick” into the pitch by using the rough side with the seem to bring about turn less than spin. Got it?
As a former leg spin bowler (and captain, umpire, batsman and club official who played the game for 20 years), I do have a little understanding ;)
Hey Alex, that's great to hear, I come from a cricket family, grew up on the side of the boundary, played county cricket at junior levels, played back in the day with or against 10+ guys who played for England, but...

...when it comes to discussing cricket I honestly think all that stuff is largely irrelevant. Anyone can learn the nuances of the game with a little curiosity and perhaps more time/patience. The sport is blessed with excellent commentators who explain the technical subtleties very well backed up by slow-mo HD pictures. So they're not just telling they're also showing. And cricket seems to be a magnet for great writers too so the raw materials to learn about the game are out there...

...Btw, and back on the current Aussie scandal, back in the day I played with someone who came within a close vote of becoming the head of the ECB (so he would have been the English version of Sutherland). He was notorious for being hard on the field both to the oppo and his own team. He was a win at all costs guy and no stranger to dark arts and grey areas. So if he'd become head of the ECB, and a scandal like the current Aussie one had blown up English cricket, would he have got everything out in the open from the off, and punished all concerned, which would be in the best interests of the ECB and the sport general, in that folk would then be able to move on? Or would he, like Sutherland, have tried fudge it, punished some but not all of the miscreants, a textbook lesson in how not to do crisis management...

...and on that subject, I see that Mitchell Starc has been withdrawn from the 4th Test and the IPL with a stress fracture. Now that's interesting! Because rumours are that Warner implicated Starc (and Haizelwood) in the ball tampering affair. But those two bowlers got the players' union and lawyers involved and as a result Sutherland bottled punishing them. So only 3 batsmen were punished for ball tampering. I can't wait for Warner's presser, is he going to go rogue...?
 
The whole culture from admin down has been nauseating for quite a few years. That Ashes win celebration at the SCG was as tacky as it gets and that wouldn't have been player organised - that was all on the ACB.

Agree on the nature of leadership and how one person at the top can really influence what happens all the way down the line.

As for the commentators explaining technical stuff, I dunno, a lot of them are the equivalents of Liggett and Sherwin, crapping on about the same old babble and have little understanding of the actual science behind what's going on. Often I find myself cringing when I listen to their explanations.
 
Aug 18, 2016
314
2
3,285
You guys do get carried away with things. I would bet plenty that most cricket players don't truly understand the science behind how the ball travels through the air or off the pitch but they learn it from experience and what they're taught. The basics I mean.

Some of you may have heard of the Australian rugby league living legend Jonathan Thurston. Those who have watched him will have seen how much he get's the ball to curve from right to left when kicking goals. Good luck getting the exact scientific answer out of him on why it curves the way it does. Sportsmen are always using physics but most wouldn't understand it fully.

And for those who feel sorry for the Ball tampering cheats. They should know what they're in for if caught. It's just that their arrogance blinded them.
 
No one has claimed you need to understand physics in order to be a good player or know how to bowl. It only goes off the rails when people attempt to explain *why* things like swing happen.

As for sandpapergate, I feel we're only scratching the surface.
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game
Or as they say in cycling:

You have dope and you have dopes, when the dopes are caught the dope isn’t, and when the dope is caught, the dopes aren’t. There is dope on how to dope, but the dopes don’t know it. Those who know the dope on doping don’t dope, but they give it to those who aren’t dopes so that they can dope with the dope and not be dopes. But in the end, it always comes down to dopes who dope, not dopers who aren’t dopes, or those who know the dope and don’t dope and aren’t dopes.

Alex Simmons/RST said:
As for sandpapergate, I feel we're only scratching the surface.
LOL, I hope that is all the players are doing!

The situation with the cricket ball is somewhat similar to the dead ball era in major league baseball, from about 1900-1920. During that time, baseballs were allowed to deteriorate during a game, to the point where the stitches started to unravel and the ball became softer. This made it harder to hit the ball for distance, and was one reason (though not the only one) why there were relatively few home runs and runs scored during this period. The so-called modern era of baseball began with the emergence of Babe Ruth, and changes in the ball were one of several occurring at the time that greatly increased offense.

The cricket rules about the ball still seem strange to me, though. Basically, the deterioration of the ball is not only allowed, but expected, yet when players attempt to enhance the process, that’s considered cheating. This is like the situation with Sky, Wiggins and Froome, where cycling allows the use of certain drugs with performance enhancing effects, and then is surprised when riders take advantage of this, and even go beyond the allowed amounts. But at least in cycling, the drugs can be rationalized in theory as medically necessary, whereas I assume a cricket ball could be made in such a way that it would not deteriorate during the course of a game, at least not so quickly that replacing it would be prohibitively expensive.
 
For reference, here is the pertinent law of cricket. I've bolded the relevant part wrt the manner in which players may legally influence the condition of the ball.

41.3 The match ball – changing its condition

41.3.1 The umpires shall make frequent and irregular inspections of the ball. In addition, they shall immediately inspect the ball if they suspect anyone of attempting to change the condition of the ball, except as permitted in 41.3.2.

41.3.2 It is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball.

Except in carrying out his/her normal duties, a batsman is not allowed to wilfully damage the ball. See also Law 5.5 (Damage to the ball).

A fielder may, however

41.3.2.1 polish the ball on his/her clothing provided that no artificial substance is used and that such polishing wastes no time.

41.3.2.2 remove mud from the ball under the supervision of an umpire.

41.3.2.3 dry a wet ball on a piece of cloth that has been approved by the umpires.

41.3.3 The umpires shall consider the condition of the ball to have been unfairly changed if any action by any player does not comply with the conditions in 41.3.2.


41.3.4 If the umpires consider that the condition of the ball has been unfairly changed by a member or members of either side, they shall ask the captain of the opposing side if he/she would like the ball to be replaced. If necessary, in the case of the batting side, the batsmen at the wicket may deputise for their captain.

41.3.4.1 If a replacement ball is requested, the umpires shall select and bring into use immediately, a ball which shall have wear comparable to that of the previous ball immediately prior to the contravention.

41.3.4.2 Regardless of whether a replacement ball has been chosen to be used, the bowler’s end umpire shall

- award 5 Penalty runs to the opposing side.

- if appropriate, inform the batsmen at the wicket and the captain of the fielding side that the ball has been changed and the reason for their action.

- inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.

The umpires together shall report the occurrence as soon as possible after the match to the Executive of the offending side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain, any other individuals concerned and, if appropriate, the team.

41.3.5 If the umpires agree that in the match there has been any further instance by that team of unfairly changing the condition of the ball, they shall

41.3.5.1 repeat the procedure in 41.3.4.1 and 41.3.4.2.

If the further offence is committed by the fielding side, additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall

41.3.5.2 - direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend immediately from bowling the bowler who delivered the preceding ball; he/she shall not be allowed to bowl again in the match.

- inform the batsmen at the wicket and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of the reason for the action.

- if necessary, the over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled any part of the previous over, nor be allowed to bowl any part of the next over.
 
Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
For reference, here is the pertinent law of cricket. I've bolded the relevant part wrt the manner in which players may legally influence the condition of the ball.
Andrew Flintoff contributes to a podcast and this was discussed. Saliva, lipsalve, suncream - all seen as OK. Saliva with sweets - I can't remember what he said. Throwing it in the dirt, trying to squeeze the ball (white ball). There were lots of dark arts. But sandpaper as a no-no as was gouging the ball or seam picking.

The pros 'know' what is and isn't ok.

They've previously discussed 'grey area' drugs as well. Flintoff had 90 cortisone injections in his career.
 
IOW you can't pick at it with your nails, teeth, or use any other object or substance than what the player naturally produces (i.e. saliva, sweat) and rubbing on clothing*.

Using sandpaper to roughen the ball is cheating plain and simple. In this case it was worse because it was premeditated, planned by the captain and vice captain and delegated to a junior member to execute. Then when found out further attempts to cover up were made.

I'd equate it to planning to tamper with your opponents bikes to put them at a disadvantage, sending one of you new domestique riders to do the dirty work and them attempting to cover it up when a media camera caught them in the act.


* It wouldn't surprise me to learn some player's clothing is made with rough surfaces in strategic locations. That would be akin to British Cycling using illegal equipment since clothing is provider by the cricket team's administration.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY