Wrist Spin Bowling (part Five)

[someblokecalleddave]

Yes.

Good. Okay then, this is where it's going to get complicated. That all makes perfect sense to me so far. More illustrations are required, I'll be a while...

Okay, so what happens if you release the ball so that it's mid-way between the flying saucer ball and the top-spinner?

Would this dip more than the flying saucer and have slightly less, but a little bit of swerve to the off-side?

 

[Spen]

Sorry Dave, the reason I posted that was I wasn't sure if what I said would be clear and that seemed clearer than my muddled words. But as Leftie said, yes, the force is applied in the direction of the rotation.

 

[boogiespinner]

I think Chino's flying saucer is spinning the other way? forgive me if I have missed something.

 

[leftie600]

Good. Okay then, this is where it's going to get complicated. That all makes perfect sense to me so far. More illustrations are required, I'll be a while...

Okay, so what happens if you release the ball so that it's mid-way between the flying saucer ball and the top-spinner?

Would this dip more than the flying saucer and have slightly less, but a little bit of swerve to the off-side?

Depends which way you've released the flying saucer (hopefully I've remember typed his the right way round).

For me if I bowl the flying saucer 'under' my hand with a leg break twist (bowled as a laugh in the nets sometimes) it will drift out straight away, therefore if you get it between that flying saucer and a square leg break it will dip and drift out.

If I bowl a flying saucer out of the top of my hand with a leg break twist it will drift in straight away (actually bowl this in games).

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Depends which way you've released the flying saucer (hopefully I've remember typed his the right way round).

For me if I bowl the flying saucer 'under' my hand with a leg break twist (bowled as a laugh in the nets sometimes) it will drift out straight away, therefore if you get it between that flying saucer and a square leg break it will dip and drift out.

If I bowl a flying saucer out of the top of my hand with a leg break twist it will drift in straight away (actually bowl this in games).

Drift out where - to the leg-side totally contradicting all the evidence I've discussed here already or towards the off-side?

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Dave, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by the flying saucer ball. I'll try to explain it better, but I know some people are visual learners so they might have trouble understanding this.

The biggest leg break with the seam at 90 degrees will look almost seamless if you look at it from the back. The ideal leg break at 75 degrees will allow a small view of the shiny side on the right side of the ball, and half of the seam will be visible on the right side, and a small bit on the top (Right Handed Leg Spinner) With the flying saucer leg break half of the seam is visible on the back of the ball, but it is halfway between a pure flying saucer delivery and the 75 degree leg break.
I don't remember how I stumbled upon this delivery, but I have no doubts of its effectiveness. Warne has also bowled a few, and Mushtaq Ahmed's stock leg break sometimes looks like a flying saucer leg break.
I can't describe the exact release for this delivery as it is very complex, I usually bowl it by visualizing it and bowling it through muscle memory. You have to release it partly from the front of the hand and partly from the side of the hand; this should get you some extra drift and maybe some other effect as well.
Dave's illustration is upside down, the seam is actually angled upwards when bowling this delivery that I have in mind, and it's angled slightly more sideways which is in this case overspin. It's very confusing trying to explain this.

Okay, that's good, lets drop the name 'Flying saucer' unless of course we're talking about a ball that has those attributes. I'm going to have to photograph a ball from a gazillion angles! But, in the meantime, what I have suggested - does that make sense to you so far, do you agree that a ball with those flight attributes would dip and swerve towards the off-side?

 

[leftie600]

Yes that's if you bowl the pure flying saucer delivery. The one bowled from underneath the hand is too difficult to bowl to think of it as a useful variation. You need a ridiculously round arm release to be able to bowl it, almost like Grimmet. I never bowl a pure flying saucer leg break, it's always halfway between a flying saucer leg break and a 75 degree leg break, which is a very interesting angle of spin.
Imagine looking at the ball from the bowler's point of view when it is at eye level, the seam is pointing diagonally with the top pointing towards off, now it is twisted so that not pointing diagonally but the axis is tilted slightly more backwards.
If the ball were a flat object, it would be diagonal when viewed from square leg. Maybe not entirely but more or less. That's my flying saucer leg break hybrid. I'm trying to think of bowlers that have bowled this but I can't seem to remember, although I'm convinced I have seen it from some bowlers before.

Yes they are completely useless, more a bit of fun in the nets although. Bowling it out the top of the hand can have its moments and is something I have bowled in a game when nothing is working.

I agree with you about the hybrid delivery being out there as I've seen it as well.

 

[leftie600]

Drift out where - to the leg-side totally contradicting all the evidence I've discussed here already or towards the off-side?

To the offside for under the hand and to the legside for out the top, easy enough to test with one of those hollow kids plastic cricket balls.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Yes that's if you bowl the pure flying saucer delivery. The one bowled from underneath the hand is too difficult to bowl to think of it as a useful variation. You need a ridiculously round arm release to be able to bowl it, almost like Grimmet. I never bowl a pure flying saucer leg break, it's always halfway between a flying saucer leg break and a 75 degree leg break, which is a very interesting angle of spin.
Imagine looking at the ball from the bowler's point of view when it is at eye level, the seam is pointing diagonally with the top pointing towards off, now it is twisted so that not pointing diagonally but the axis is tilted slightly more backwards.
If the ball were a flat object, it would be diagonal when viewed from square leg. Maybe not entirely but more or less. That's my flying saucer leg break hybrid. I'm trying to think of bowlers that have bowled this but I can't seem to remember, although I'm convinced I have seen it from some bowlers before.

Reading this description, this sounds a little like the analysis offered by Woolmer in his A&S of cricket of Warne's 'Ball of the century'. In the analysis he says that the ball with the 90 degree seam as here below will not drift. I guess because the airflow over the ball is equal. To my mind, this ball if anything because of the spin direction should surely dip rapidly because it has spin on it, but my gut feeling is that it would veer if anything towards the off-side?

(1). We all agree that a ball like this below will just dip?

(2). So a ball with a little angle on it (As below) will obviously dip?

(3). A little more angle? Still dipping?

(4). And more angle still - What now? I reckon still it dips loads?

(5). The next stage brings us to something that is nearing the 90 degree seam - is this still dipping and if not why not? But the bigger question is which of these balls if any are ones that would drift?

 

[leftie600]

Reading this description, this sounds a little like the analysis offered by Woolmer in his A&S of cricket of Warne's 'Ball of the century'. In the analysis he says that the ball with the 90 degree seam as here below will not drift. I guess because the airflow over the ball is equal. To my mind, this ball if anything because of the spin direction should surely dip rapidly because it has spin on it, but my gut feeling is that it would veer if anything towards the off-side?

(1). We all agree that a ball like this below will just dip?
(2). So a ball with a little angle on it (As below) will obviously dip?
(3). A little more angle? Still dipping?
(4). And more angle still - What now? I reckon still it dips loads?
(5). The next stage brings us to something that is nearing the 90 degree seam - is this still dipping and if not why not? But the bigger question is which of these balls if any are ones that would drift?

Which way is the ball moving in those pictures? Toward the reader or from right to left on the screen?

 

[boogiespinner]

Reading this description, this sounds a little like the analysis offered by Woolmer in his A&S of cricket of Warne's 'Ball of the century'. In the analysis he says that the ball with the 90 degree seam as here below will not drift. I guess because the airflow over the ball is equal. To my mind, this ball if anything because of the spin direction should surely dip rapidly because it has spin on it, but my gut feeling is that it would veer if anything towards the off-side?

Woolmer is not correct! (I previously thought he was, but someone posted here recently about the importance of the up-down movement of the ball, particularly the 'down' phase, where the ball will drift in).

A really good explanation of the detail is on this page
http://pencilcricket.blogspot.co.uk/p/magnus-effect-in-leg-spin-bowling.html
(see part 3)

A simple way to picture it is to consider the extreme case where the bowler is vertically above the batsman, and spins the (dropped) ball square - it's relatively easy to see that the magnus effect will drift the ball in to the batsman. Now the mathematics work out that you get a fair chunk of this drift, even when the ball is only dropping a little compared to forward motion.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Sorry about all this, but more questions... Chino, you're saying that the 90 degree square turning Leg Break - the one that Woolmer says will not drift, doesn't dip at all? That then leads me to conclude that the more the ball is angled away from being pure top-spin and more towards being pure side spin, the less it will dip and the more likely it will be to drift?

I can't believe the 'No dip' factor of your claim, simply because any ball delivered above the eye-line at more than 35mph is not going to land anywhere near in front of the popping crease. Warne bowls as we all know in the 50-55mph speed range and therefore there has to be tons of dip, otherwise the ball is going to end up at head level if released at that speed on the initial trajectory? Or you're saying that the 'Ball of the century' was bowled flat and straight?

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Warne's slider was a backspinning delivery and he bowled it 5mph faster than his leg break, yet its trajectory wasn't all that flatter.

"Also remember that Warne put so many revs on the ball, that an inch of top spin on his leg break would produce as much dip on the ball as an average leggie's top spinner".
So, you're acknowledging anything that has any angle on it towards slips with over-spin is starting to become a Leg Break, what I'd call a small leg break and because of the over-spin is still going to dip dramatically?

 

[boogiespinner]

I can't believe the 'No dip' factor of your claim, simply because any ball delivered above the eye-line at more than 35mph is not going to land anywhere near in front of the popping crease. Warne bowls as we all know in the 50-55mph speed range and therefore there has to be tons of dip, otherwise the ball is going to end up at head level if released at that speed on the initial trajectory? Or you're saying that the 'Ball of the century' was bowled flat and straight?

My very basic calculation had that if you launched a ball dead horizontally from 2m high, with no topspin, then it needed to be around 55mph to land on a good length. I didn't account for the slowing down of the ball, but I think it means it's perfectly possible to bowl a good length ball without dip.

I think someone has to do the calculations here. How much does the magnus effect (i.e. dip) shorten a delivery? Say, the Gatting ball drifted 9 inches (Benaud's estimate). Suppose that drift was all dip. How much a shorter length would that mean?

I should be able to attack this...

 

[boogiespinner]

my napkin calculation suggests that it's about 2.5 times. i.e. if you can drift a ball sideways 9 inches you might with dip shorten the length by about two feet.

 

[Cleanprophet]

I've watched the Warne DVD and didn't hear him say this. Has he actually said this?

There's a few of the Warne 'Masterclass' type videos (3 or 4). If I remember rightly, it was one with Mark Nicholas where he simply said that you are not going to beat most batsman off the pitch. He was talking about spinning up (probably the video where he spoke about his mantra "think high, spin up") so that you can beat the batsman through the air with drift and dip.

It's a fairly basic aspect of spin bowling, especially at high levels. Quick and flat is seen much more these days in limited overs cricket. In the longer form of the game, you really need to drag the batsman forward and out of his crease, if possible, and have him commit to a line and length. That usually means bowling it about 75kph-85kkph (47mph-52mph). At that speed, a decent batter will back himself to get to the pitch of the ball. If you get dip on the ball, then there's every chance the batter will misjudge the length. The problem is, the slower you bowl it, the easier it is for the batter to get to the pitch of the ball. You have very little margin for error in length. It takes courage and plenty of skill to bowl it at that speed effectively. But, for me, there is no doubt that this is most effective way of dismissing quality batters. High stakes bowling. Get it right and you will be very effective. Get it wrong and you will be very expensive. If you bowl it quicker and flatter you will not go for big runs but you will also not be a strike bowler.

EDIT: I've just that Chino found the Warne video and posted it. Thanks for that. It's a very good little piece of footage.

 

[Cleanprophet]

If this is true how are tennis players able to get a tennis ball to drift they way they do? A tennis ball is far rougher than a cricket ball, is it a case of a tennis ball just having far greater revs when hit?

There is one massive difference between tennis and cricket when it comes to sideways movement of the ball and that is distance. In tennis, the ball is usually travelling almost double the distance. You won't see a tennis ball drift very much before it passes over the net. The movement tends to happen after 20yards. In cricket, a ball is drifting after about a dozen yards or less.

 

[Cleanprophet]

Sorry about all this, but more questions... Chino, you're saying that the 90 degree square turning Leg Break - the one that Woolmer says will not drift, doesn't dip at all?

Yes, that first example of yours shows a pure side spinning delivery with no top spin at all. That will have no dip at all. Generally, you would not bother bowling a ball like that in a match. The top spin provides dip and pace and bounce off the pitch.

If I'm honest, I wouldn't try to bowl any of those 5 examples (the first one being the only one I would try now and then - for me, that ball certainly does drift, not matter what Woolmer said). I think you always should try to bowl with an upright seam if you are trying to bowl with a clean seam. If the seam comes out angled a little then that's no bad thing as it will behave differently. But I think it is good practice to focus on keeping the seam upright with your fingers dragging over the top of the ball.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Yes, that first example of yours shows a pure side spinning delivery with no top spin at all. That will have no dip at all. Generally, you would not bother bowling a ball like that in a match. The top spin provides dip and pace and bounce off the pitch.

If I'm honest, I wouldn't try to bowl any of those 5 examples (the first one being the only one I would try now and then - for me, that ball certainly does drift, not matter what Woolmer said). I think you always should try to bowl with an upright seam if you are trying to bowl with a clean seam. If the seam comes out angled a little then that's no bad thing as it will behave differently. But I think it is good practice to focus on keeping the seam upright with your fingers dragging over the top of the ball.

The interesting point that Woolmer makes, and you have to consider he has a team of experts and people that he obviously called on during his research is
that the ball previously described with the perfectly vertical seam, he says will not drift. What he does say though is that if the seam is retained at 90 degree but tilted backwards, that makes a fundamental difference and he says that the Warne ball that drifted the 9", the seam was presented as per my illustration below. He says it's the inclusion of the backward tilt is the factor that makes the 90 degree ball drift. Perfect upright 90 degree seam doesn't drift.

This is a visual of the Woolmer description.

 

[Cleanprophet]

None of the footage I've seen of the Warne ball in 1993 has a good enough resolution to allow me to see the seam position. From what I've seen of that ball, it drifts a long way, yes, but it also dips a decent amount too. That would suggest top spin. Not only that but the way the ball really kicks and spits would also suggest a decent bit of top spin.

I have heard about this tilt thing before. Frankly, I don't enough about that to comment one way or the other. But I would love to see whatever footage Woolmer had that showed the seam presented with the sidespin and backwards tilt on the ball. I've not seen any footage of Warne's bowling that showed any tilt. I have seen him drift it plenty with an upright seam.

This one shows all kinds of releases he had (including the slider out of the front of the hand):