Contrast swing
New age methods for an old game
By Harsha Bhogle
There is an overwhelming sense of deja-vu about the reactions to Dr. Rabindra Mehta's new theory of contrast swing. Duckworth and Lewis know it very well, to a lesser extent so does Jayadevan whose rain-rule is now being used in Indian cricket. The sceptics, or indeed the disbelievers, are first off the blocks and Dr. Mehta will soon be aware, if he isn't already, that ridicule is the first link in the chain of acceptance.
Dr. Mehta, an aerodynamics consultant and a NASA scientist, believes that quite apart from conventional swing bowling and its cousin, the reverse swing, it is possible to swing a ball by holding the seam pointing vertically rather than inclined towards the slips or fine leg as accepted wisdom suggests. It is different from what has been traditionally taught, and practised, but that alone isn't a good enough reason to trash it.
Now Dr. Mehta's theory may be right and it may be wrong. England's bowling coach believes it is good enough, someone else is entitled to another point of view provided that is tested. But to reject something because "it wasn't made here" is disheartening. Now, here are some quotes from the Times of India, from people who were magnificent users of a cricket ball. Kapil Dev, "What is all this contrast swing... I know swing bowling, not rocket science. I used to play cricket, not mathematics. These are new age terms for things we have been doing since way back", Javagal Srinath thinks it must be "just some normal reverse swing thing", Venkatesh Prasad is "more comfortable going with what I know", T.A.Sekhar says "... frankly I chose not to confuse my boys. Is there any need to?" And Manoj Prabhakar thinks it has to be "simply impossible".
Not one of them seems to have expressed curiosity, there doesn't seem to have been a twinkle in the eye at an interesting new development. My suspicion is that if Dennis Lillee had said so, or for that matter, if Dr. Mehta's roommate, Imran Khan had, there would have been almost instant acceptance. Sadly, around the sporting world there has always been a disdainful attitude towards knowledge from outside its accepted boundaries.
Indeed what a lot of our cricketers fail to understand is that they are wonderful practitioners of a craft and that this ability can be the starting point of a new, more universal theory. That is how all science progresses; from a series of observations to a predictive model. The practitioner may not always know the reason why he can do what he does. He cannot, for example, be expected to know that Bernoulli's Principle could govern the flow of a ball in air. Some of us cannot either but somebody can. That someone may not be able to bowl a cricket ball the way a champion can. One generates the observations, the other understands the science behind it. Neither can belittle the other.
Some of the greatest advances in sport these days are coming from new age shoes, apparel and equipment. Again the advances aren't coming from players alone but from those who work with the players to generate the facts that science needs. Contrast swing could be a great advance, it could be a scientific method of putting random thoughts and actions together, or it might just be a hypothesis. But we ignore such advances at our own peril simply because they come from outside a closed community.
Most methods stall beyond a certain point, thereafter they need fresh infusion of thought. The high jump is a great example. Dick Fosbury revolutionised the sport in 1968 with his Fosbury Flop, a completely new way of going over the bar. The advantage with Fosbury was that he used it himself in getting a gold medal. But had he merely been a sports enthusiast with an inquisitive mind, would his fantastic technique have been any less valuable?
Cricketers have made significant contributions to our game but the most flimsy rain-rule came from the hugely respected and pioneering Richie Benaud and an army of former internationals came up with the super-sub (with a slight modification it might have done good for the game), which was scrapped in a hurry. Now, if only we can have an open mind and accept that the best ideas can come from anywhere...
http://espnstar.com/studio/studio_coldetail_1671226.html
New age methods for an old game
By Harsha Bhogle
There is an overwhelming sense of deja-vu about the reactions to Dr. Rabindra Mehta's new theory of contrast swing. Duckworth and Lewis know it very well, to a lesser extent so does Jayadevan whose rain-rule is now being used in Indian cricket. The sceptics, or indeed the disbelievers, are first off the blocks and Dr. Mehta will soon be aware, if he isn't already, that ridicule is the first link in the chain of acceptance.
Dr. Mehta, an aerodynamics consultant and a NASA scientist, believes that quite apart from conventional swing bowling and its cousin, the reverse swing, it is possible to swing a ball by holding the seam pointing vertically rather than inclined towards the slips or fine leg as accepted wisdom suggests. It is different from what has been traditionally taught, and practised, but that alone isn't a good enough reason to trash it.
Now Dr. Mehta's theory may be right and it may be wrong. England's bowling coach believes it is good enough, someone else is entitled to another point of view provided that is tested. But to reject something because "it wasn't made here" is disheartening. Now, here are some quotes from the Times of India, from people who were magnificent users of a cricket ball. Kapil Dev, "What is all this contrast swing... I know swing bowling, not rocket science. I used to play cricket, not mathematics. These are new age terms for things we have been doing since way back", Javagal Srinath thinks it must be "just some normal reverse swing thing", Venkatesh Prasad is "more comfortable going with what I know", T.A.Sekhar says "... frankly I chose not to confuse my boys. Is there any need to?" And Manoj Prabhakar thinks it has to be "simply impossible".
Not one of them seems to have expressed curiosity, there doesn't seem to have been a twinkle in the eye at an interesting new development. My suspicion is that if Dennis Lillee had said so, or for that matter, if Dr. Mehta's roommate, Imran Khan had, there would have been almost instant acceptance. Sadly, around the sporting world there has always been a disdainful attitude towards knowledge from outside its accepted boundaries.
Indeed what a lot of our cricketers fail to understand is that they are wonderful practitioners of a craft and that this ability can be the starting point of a new, more universal theory. That is how all science progresses; from a series of observations to a predictive model. The practitioner may not always know the reason why he can do what he does. He cannot, for example, be expected to know that Bernoulli's Principle could govern the flow of a ball in air. Some of us cannot either but somebody can. That someone may not be able to bowl a cricket ball the way a champion can. One generates the observations, the other understands the science behind it. Neither can belittle the other.
Some of the greatest advances in sport these days are coming from new age shoes, apparel and equipment. Again the advances aren't coming from players alone but from those who work with the players to generate the facts that science needs. Contrast swing could be a great advance, it could be a scientific method of putting random thoughts and actions together, or it might just be a hypothesis. But we ignore such advances at our own peril simply because they come from outside a closed community.
Most methods stall beyond a certain point, thereafter they need fresh infusion of thought. The high jump is a great example. Dick Fosbury revolutionised the sport in 1968 with his Fosbury Flop, a completely new way of going over the bar. The advantage with Fosbury was that he used it himself in getting a gold medal. But had he merely been a sports enthusiast with an inquisitive mind, would his fantastic technique have been any less valuable?
Cricketers have made significant contributions to our game but the most flimsy rain-rule came from the hugely respected and pioneering Richie Benaud and an army of former internationals came up with the super-sub (with a slight modification it might have done good for the game), which was scrapped in a hurry. Now, if only we can have an open mind and accept that the best ideas can come from anywhere...
http://espnstar.com/studio/studio_coldetail_1671226.html