The state of off-spin bowling/suspect actions/doosra bowlers worldwide

[War]

West Indies Cricket News: ICC suspends Shillingford for illegal bowling action | ESPN Cricinfo

This is a sad case for the Windies bowler, but i think his suspension has larger ramifications in the wider context of off-spin bowling in international cricket under the guidance of the incompetent ICC, who seem to be setting a horrific double standard between asia & non-asian bowlers who bowl the "doosra".

Years ago i recall former Indian spin legend Bishen Bedi during his attacks on Murali, always would say the "doosra" is a delivery that cannont be bowled legitimately & i personally always agreed with the position.

The only clean off-spinners in the world are Swann, Lyon, Tredwell - because they are conventional. When Ajmal, Hafeez, Ashwin, Narine, Sohag Gazi, Harbhajan, Shillingford, Sesanayke bowl they doosra they chuck to be brutally frank.


But in this batsmen friendly age, the doosra gave off-spinners a new wicket taking weapon & i and i presume many just accepted it. However if the ICC is going to say now the Shillingford general action when bowling is conventional off-break, when it could be argued some other off-spinners (Ajmal, Haffez, Gazi) have action that look far worse than Shillingford to the naked eye - is utterly ridiculous.

IMO the Doosra inventor - Saqlain Mushtaq was the only one who managed to bowl doosra while looking like he wasn't throwing ha.

This 15-degree tolerance thing, to me has always been a smoke screen created to protect Murali after that episode in the 1998 tri-series in Australia.

I recall former Pakistan opener Rameez Raja saying on interview on a programme is saw on skysports that he was at the ICC meeting in 1998 when Murali's action was being questioned. And he recalled that the "Asian block" countries all came together as if the "rest of world" was trying to attack Asia - when some in Asia thought like ROW countries that legitimate questions were being asked about Murali's action.

So they Murali case never was properly scrutinized & then they created this 15-degree tolerance testing to bring legitimacy to his action & the cricket world has just accept the fraud for years.

But fact is many Non-asian countries don't support their young bowlers bowling such a delivery:

- England Cricket News: Testing methods hold back England | ESPN Cricinfo


- Australia Cricket News: Integrity at stake over doosra - John Inverarity | ESPN Cricinfo

Ian Chappell also even when tasked with picking the the all-time world XI on cricinfo a couple years back, said plainly one of the main reasons why he picked Warne over Murali - was because question marks over his action remain - Comments : Ian Chappell on ESPNcricinfo's World XI: Bowlers | 'A complete pace attack' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

The ICC either needs to legitimize the doosra or ban it totally cause is ludicrous that Shilly is being banned, while some obvious other doosra bowling bowlers are still going to be playing.

Windies board should launch a immediately protest that all such bowlers be scrutinized, since its a crying shame that Shillingford who was the best performing WI spinners since the great Lance Gibbs career will basically end in such a grotesque manner. He is not going to come back after a 3rd testing.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

erm, according to that report his standard action is unclean. even if there was no doosra he'd still be banned.

don't let facts get in the way of a good rant about the doosra though.

I said at the time, this is just more evidence of how the WICB couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

still no spin coach employed, players with previous bans left so their action deteriorates again, no testing in domestic cricket to try and ensure bowlers with unclean actions are caught.


i'm not sure why the ICC is thought to be running a massive conspiracy. they'd have nothing to gain, the main benefactor at the time was a tiny circketing nation of almost no financial significance and they aren't exactly famed for being able to organise anything, let alone an operation involving independent bodies forging results for nefarious gains we can't put our finger on.

the windies are more in bed with india even if this was a financial thing tied back to BBCI muscle. india and pakistan are currently embroiled in a messy dispute yet ajmal passed fine, the west indies just went over at the drop of a hat for a big pay cheque.

 

[karolkarol]

I can't see the WICB putting up too much fight given that by calling for further testing on doosra bowlers they could be implicating Narine.

 

[War]

erm, according to that report his standard action is unclean. even if there was no doosra he'd still be banned.

don't let facts get in the way of a good rant about the doosra though.

I said at the time, this is just more evidence of how the WICB couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

still no spin coach employed, players with previous bans left so their action deteriorates again, no testing in domestic cricket to try and ensure bowlers with unclean actions are caught.


i'm not sure why the ICC is thought to be running a massive conspiracy. they'd have nothing to gain, the main benefactor at the time was a tiny circketing nation of almost no financial significance and they aren't exactly famed for being able to organise anything, let alone an operation involving independent bodies forging results for nefarious gains we can't put our finger on.

the windies are more in bed with india even if this was a financial thing tied back to BBCI muscle. india and pakistan are currently embroiled in a messy dispute yet ajmal passed fine, the west indies just went over at the drop of a hat for a big pay cheque.

You make it sound is Windies have been producing chuckers every other week. Samuels chucks i have no issue with that, when he came back i'm surprised they didn't call him for his quicker ball earlier.

Before that Jermaine Lawson was called back in 2003/2005 & was rightfully banned. No other windies bowler has had a suspect action, so i'm not sure how one can criticize the WICB for any of the reasons you stated.

I simply question that testing results about Shillingford, i cannot see how his standard action is unclean according to their testing. Ajmal, Hafeez, Gazi look far worse/equally on par as Shillingford - have not been scrutinized as much as him in recent years.

I cannot say whether its a particular conspiracy by the ICC, with regards how they handle the doosra issue with the non-asian bowlers who bowl it - or the non asian bowlers who have suspect actions.

They just seem horribly inconsistent with who they call - especially those who bowl the doosra. Some bowlers of the ball get called more than some - which is why i say they either legalize it universally or ban it totally.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I don't think it would make them produce chuckers every other week, it's just I don't think they have the proper provisions to manage bowlers that have a tendency to chuck.

I'm not sure there is that much inconsistency in who they call. you have

Harbahajan, reported and tested 2005 - cleared.
botha, reported twice and banned twice, eventually cleared now.
Kirtley for england, banned then came back.
Malik, had to have surgery to clear his elbow.
Shabbir Ahmed, in December 2005, banned but came back 12 months later
Razzaq of bangladesh was reported and banned for throwing in 2008, came back in 2009.
Murali, tested a number of times, never banned.
Ajmal, tested in 2009 and not banned.
Brett Lee, reported and tested, not banned.
hafeez, reported and tested, not banned.

I'm not sure how ajmal could pass the tests looking into his action and shillfingford not unless shillingford genuinely does chuck whereas ajmal does keep within the 15 degree limit. you can either say it's inconsistent, or just that it is what it is and that testing reveals one's within the limits and the other isn't.

that list shows a good spread of countries and outcomes, and I can't help but wonder if you've been a little guilty of having a selective memory. sure, people start talking about chucking these days and ajmal and murali jump to mind and people get annoyed they seem to "get away with it" but what of malik, ahmed and razzaq?

shillingford has had a lot of scrutiny by the way, not just from the ICC, you mentioned Bedi in your OP, well Bedi was going nuts about shillingford during the IND v WI test series.

you say they should ban it or should allow it in all cases. well, firstly, even if they did ban it it wouldn't help shillingford, and secondly, the 15 degree rule can be read as them allowing it just they have set some conditions, they don't want players bending there arms ridiculously so they imposed a limit of 15 degrees. the level it's seen as pratical to enforce.

I can't really find any contention except maybe some of the better bowlers are able to deliver doosras without bending their arms while others can't. certainly I've never doubted murali, especially after seeing the video where he bowled in a brace and spun it square.

 

[War]

But how many bowlers have have WI had in recent decades that have had a tendency to chuck? Plus, what are these provisions that you believe WICB are lacking to manage such bowlers in your view?

I am aware of all those reported players from over the years - never forgot them, however i wouldn't involve the fast bowlers in this discussion since i don't think the cases of chucking quicks is a prevalent with doosra spinners. Generally in as that list shows, when quicks have chucked worldwide they have been called - although some people still would say Akthar & Lee chucked the odd delivery in their careers.

Although we could involved Razzak, because he does attempt a left-arm version of the doosra & does look a bit jerky.

What did Bedi say about Shillingford? Didn't hear his comments, but if he was on him about his doosra, that would be very consistent with his critique of all spinners.

To me the biggest problem with the 15 degree rule, which essentially came about lets not forget because of the Murali saga in 1998, is how can you have a rule which cannot be monitored throughout the match?? The bowlers are called in laboratories to monitor their action, where the player knows that all the eyes are on him and he is under no pressure to save runs or take wickets, I am skeptical that some bowlers in such a scenario will be able to not bend his arms & escape scrutiny.

This is where i suspect in the testing zone Ajmal/Hafeez is getting away with this "limit" over Shillingford, because for the life of me i cannot see how Shilly's action according to those tests has been deemed worse that those two.


Therefore the rule should be scrapped at least until there is a technology to monitor the action throughout the match - that's the only way to conclusively get this right & its something i have heard the ICC is conscious of & is trying to implement.

 

[War]

I can't see the WICB putting up too much fight given that by calling for further testing on doosra bowlers they could be implicating Narine.

Yes maybe, but if he has to be called especially for his doosra so be it. Cricket has allowed too much slackness over this issue for too long.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

But how many bowlers have have WI had in recent decades that have had a tendency to chuck? Plus, what are these provisions that you believe WICB are lacking to manage such bowlers in your view?

spin coach/any form of spinning input in their coaching staff.

some of it is mentioned in the second half of this article. Shane Shillingford case has WI in a spin | Cricket News | West Indies | ESPN Cricinfo

I am aware of all those reported players from over the years - never forgot them, however i wouldn't involve the fast bowlers in this discussion since i don't think the cases of chucking quicks is a prevalent with doosra spinners. Generally in as that list shows, when quicks have chucked worldwide they have been called - although some people still would say Akthar & Lee chucked the odd delivery in their careers.

I'm not so sure about that, I think quicks probably get away with it a bit more because their actions are faster and harder to pick up. if it's the naked eye being used then it's always going to be easier to pick up someone flexing while bowling at 55mph than it is when they're bowling 85mph. you ever seen Eldene Baptiste? Eldene Baptiste, Throwing vs Pakistan - YouTube this was never called.

What did Bedi say about Shillingford? Didn't hear his comments, but if he was on him about his doosra, that would be very consistent with his critique of all spinners.

he went on twitter and said it was a joke umpires were checking him for a front foot no ball when every ball he bowled was a no ball. he also said india couldn't complain, probably in reference to harbhajan singh who he's been very vocal about.

To me the biggest problem with the 15 degree rule, which essentially came about lets not forget because of the Murali saga in 1998, is how can you have a rule which cannot be monitored throughout the match?? The bowlers are called in laboratories to monitor their action, where the player knows that all the eyes are on him and he is under no pressure to save runs or take wickets, I am skeptical that some bowlers in such a scenario will be able to not bend his arms & escape scrutiny.

the whole point of the 15 degree rule is that is the limit at which you can monitor it throughout a match. look, I don't know if the ICC have just been very clever or not with their "smallest degree visible to the naked eye" thing or not, but if it's not true it's a bloody good reason to make up because it instantly repels these sort of criticisms. once they can monitor it through technology they can make it any degree they want but in the interests of practicality they've set it at 15 degrees.

however, you cannot have a rule that just goes along the lines of "it sort of looks like..." people want video technology in football because no one is happy with a system where if it "sort of looks like the ball has crossed the line" it's a goal, or "it sort of looks like it's a foul" it's a red card. DRS has been brought in to cricket specifically to get rid of situations where a player "sort of looks like he's out" but isn't is being given out. you have codification in sport, limits, rules, etc thus on the chucking you need a way to put it into an agreed set of limits. 15 degrees is this chosen limit, "it sort of looks like" over 15 degrees is simply not an acceptable way of quanitifying it. as far as the technology goes right now the only way we can measure this is to use naked eye judgement and then try to establish the accuracy of that judgement with testing.

(regardless of whether I think it's right or wrong or what not, it's a very logically tight set of rules that leaves very little room for criticism. the DRS rules in comparison are scribbled in monkey faeces on a bathroom wall compared the rules on throwing)

which brings us to...

This is where i suspect in the testing zone Ajmal/Hafeez is getting away with this "limit" over Shillingford, because for the life of me i cannot see how Shilly's action according to those tests has been deemed worse that those two.

the testing method seems to be the most contentious part when people talk about chucking. in this example though why couldn't shillingford just bowl with less pressure and keep his arm straight? there is a lot of information on how they do this testing, it's an australian organisation and I think it's a little more complicated than having them come in and bowl a few overs. I think they are required to match the speeds the bowl in matches and a degree of accuracy is expected. however, at the end of the day, there is two options, either you just accept the tests and findings are legitimate or you accuse the ICC of fraud, conspiracy and cover ups. there's no other way out of it, either hafeez/ajmal can convince testers they can bowl without flexing over 15 degrees and shillingford can't, or the ICC deliberately manipulated the outcome in one of these cases.

if you want to accuse them of that then you'd be better at focusing on the motives they might have and any possible evidence rather than just complaining about the doosra.

Therefore the rule should be scrapped at least until there is a technology to monitor the action throughout the match - that's the only way to conclusively get this right & its something i have heard the ICC is conscious of & is trying to implement.

I don't think you really can do this because types of deliveries aren't really in the rules, what's a doosra? you couldn't just ban a bowler from getting it to turn the other way, and it's been shown that it can be done legally so why ban it? anyway, I seriously doubt the ICC is trying to ban doosras. I would happily concede the ICC has taken the measures it has, despite them being based on fairly sound reasoning, in order to allow spin bowlers and express pace bowlers like lee and akthar, essentially the best bowlers to watch, to push the limits of bowling, not reign them in. the rules have been well put together, but they definitely err on the side of the bowler getting the benefit of the doubt.

(which indeed, means when someone like shillingford has failed he's almost needed to go all out to fail and he definitely should be banned)

 

[War]

spin coach/any form of spinning input in their coaching staff.

some of it is mentioned in the second half of this article. Shane Shillingford case has WI in a spin | Cricket News | West Indies | ESPN Cricinfo

I read that article & i think he is totally off, drawing some odd correlations. How is having a spin coach exactly going to prevent a bowler from having a dodgy action?

Plus before the emergence of Shillingford & Narine - WI produced a lot spinners in my lifetime who were of the orthodox category but were just nothing special (except for maybe Dinnath Ramnarine). Rawl Lewis, N Perry, Omari Banks, R Dhanraj, Neil McGarrell, M Nagamootoo, Permaul, A Jaggernauth, Gareth Breese.

He mentioned Bishoo decline as a example of lack of spin coach. I'd debate that by suggesting - Bishoo declined because the young man was overbowled in the current imbalanced windies test set-up where Sammy is one of the 4-main bowlers.

Sammy as captain many times criminally underbowls himself & spinners like Bishoo/Narine/Shillingford bowls a ridiculous amount of overs at one end. Even Murali at his peak for SRI Lanka as the long ranger for years - never was used so foolishly by various SRI captains.


Shillingford has tended to bowl a awful amount of overs too. In that recent Kolkotta test vs IND - he bowled 41 overs in a day - ridiculous.

Ok Claude Henderson is S Africa's spin coach - but other than the immigrant Tahir - which local born good spinner have the proteas produced in tests? None to date.

Plus i'm not sure if was their coach when Johan Botha was around - but Botha was clear chucker of his doosra & after he was banned from bowling it - his effectiveness as a bowler disappeared & he drifted out of the SA team.

Overall given he is a English writer (cricinfo doesn't have a actual windies correspondent) - the conclusions he is drawing don't make alot of sense to me.

I'm not so sure about that, I think quicks probably get away with it a bit more because their actions are faster and harder to pick up. if it's the naked eye being used then it's always going to be easier to pick up someone flexing while bowling at 55mph than it is when they're bowling 85mph. you ever seen Eldene Baptiste? Eldene Baptiste, Throwing vs Pakistan - YouTube this was never called.

Never saw the Baptiste video before - but are you suggesting Baptiste was a chucker who got away with it?. I never saw him bowl live, just read and listened to people who saw him bowl - no ever noted he was a bowler with a bad action.

However that was a clear throw in the video, so maybe during the age of limited camera's he got away with doing it once. Back in those days very nasty sledging went on too in countries without live match coverage.

Personally i think if a fast-bowler is chucking you can tell, just like a spinner. The times when Lee & Akhtar did it, people raised suspicions.

Historically when Kirtley, Shabbir Ahmed, Jermaine Lawson, AUS 60s pair of Ian Meckiff & Gordon Rorke, S Africa Geoff Griffen in the 60s, NZ Grantt Bartlett (spell check) also the 60s - all were quickly spotted.

the whole point of the 15 degree rule is that is the limit at which you can monitor it throughout a match. look, I don't know if the ICC have just been very clever or not with their "smallest degree visible to the naked eye" thing or not, but if it's not true it's a bloody good reason to make up because it instantly repels these sort of criticisms. once they can monitor it through technology they can make it any degree they want but in the interests of practicality they've set it at 15 degrees.

however, you cannot have a rule that just goes along the lines of "it sort of looks like..." people want video technology in football because no one is happy with a system where if it "sort of looks like the ball has crossed the line" it's a goal, or "it sort of looks like it's a foul" it's a red card. DRS has been brought in to cricket specifically to get rid of situations where a player "sort of looks like he's out" but isn't is being given out. you have codification in sport, limits, rules, etc thus on the chucking you need a way to put it into an agreed set of limits. 15 degrees is this chosen limit, "it sort of looks like" over 15 degrees is simply not an acceptable way of quanitifying it. as far as the technology goes right now the only way we can measure this is to use naked eye judgement and then try to establish the accuracy of that judgement with testing.

(regardless of whether I think it's right or wrong or what not, it's a very logically tight set of rules that leaves very little room for criticism. the DRS rules in comparison are scribbled in monkey faeces on a bathroom wall compared the rules on throwing)

which brings us to...



the testing method seems to be the most contentious part when people talk about chucking. in this example though why couldn't shillingford just bowl with less pressure and keep his arm straight? there is a lot of information on how they do this testing, it's an australian organisation and I think it's a little more complicated than having them come in and bowl a few overs. I think they are required to match the speeds the bowl in matches and a degree of accuracy is expected. however, at the end of the day, there is two options, either you just accept the tests and findings are legitimate or you accuse the ICC of fraud, conspiracy and cover ups. there's no other way out of it, either hafeez/ajmal can convince testers they can bowl without flexing over 15 degrees and shillingford can't, or the ICC deliberately manipulated the outcome in one of these cases.

if you want to accuse them of that then you'd be better at focusing on the motives they might have and any possible evidence rather than just complaining about the doosra.

I won't go as far to say the ICC is committing fraud or conspriacy over this - i just question the the 15-degree rule & always have. Media or fans never see the results or are we privy to see the testing process live - so this the forever grey area that we can never draw a clear conclusion from.

Plus while i understand what you saying in the comparison with football goal-line tech & DRS - i don't think you can compare those scenario with a bowler chucking.

Chucking IMO is close to a cricketer taking steroids or match fixing. A chucking bowler - especially a successful one is enhancing his own ability & his teams chances of being successful via illegal means, in match situations.

James Kirtley was one of the best yorker ODI bowler ENG had other than Gough in recent years - change his action that ability goes & ENG aren't able to stop opposition batsmen in the slog overs effectively.

Lawson chucking was lethal enough to take 7 wickets vs the might AUS in 2003 & get Sangakara/Jayawardene jumping in SRI 2005. Change his action all that 90 mph potency gone.

I don't think you really can do this because types of deliveries aren't really in the rules, what's a doosra? you couldn't just ban a bowler from getting it to turn the other way, and it's been shown that it can be done legally so why ban it? anyway, I seriously doubt the ICC is trying to ban doosras. I would happily concede the ICC has taken the measures it has, despite them being based on fairly sound reasoning, in order to allow spin bowlers and express pace bowlers like lee and akthar, essentially the best bowlers to watch, to push the limits of bowling, not reign them in. the rules have been well put together, but they definitely err on the side of the bowler getting the benefit of the doubt.

(which indeed, means when someone like shillingford has failed he's almost needed to go all out to fail and he definitely should be banned)

Yes ICC certainly has allowed bowlers the test the limits, this is why the "doosra" from off-spinner is so controversial & why i say it needs to be universally banned or a new limit needs to be created for it - then accept it.

Because more people believe (i see Ashley Mallet former AUS off-spinner was mentioned as a skeptic in the above article) - that the doosra is a ball that cannot be bowled without a bowler throwing. Thus the bowlers who the testing show can bowl it legally - majority don't believe.


Sanjay Manjrekar was saying this last month with regards to grey area of "lab testing" & the fact that the ICC are working on getting such live match testing technology - Match Point : Laws of the Game | Manjrekar: Need technology to monitor bowling actions live | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I read that article & i think he is totally off, drawing some odd correlations. How is having a spin coach exactly going to prevent a bowler from having a dodgy action?

what? really? who do you think they should turn to when they need to help a bowler remodel or work on his action?

and even if this wasn't a factor (and it obviously is) then blaming sammy for poorly managing his bowlers points to a windies specific issue, you might even suggest a spin bowling coach could help the captain manage his spinner better. it's not like sammy is making all the tactical decisions is he? surely no one believes captains are the only tactical voice in a teams set up?

Never saw the Baptiste video before - but are you suggesting Baptiste was a chucker who got away with it?. I never saw him bowl live, just read and listened to people who saw him bowl - no ever noted he was a bowler with a bad action.

However that was a clear throw in the video, so maybe during the age of limited camera's he got away with doing it once. Back in those days very nasty sledging went on too in countries without live match coverage.

Personally i think if a fast-bowler is chucking you can tell, just like a spinner. The times when Lee & Akhtar did it, people raised suspicions.

Historically when Kirtley, Shabbir Ahmed, Jermaine Lawson, AUS 60s pair of Ian Meckiff & Gordon Rorke, S Africa Geoff Griffen in the 60s, NZ Grantt Bartlett (spell check) also the 60s - all were quickly spotted.

no idea where this is going but the point is fast bowlers chuck too, and often enough that they shouldn't be disqualified from a discussion on chuckers. numerous fast bowlers have been called on chucking, and tested and some banned. maybe if they're banning the doosra they should also ban anyone from going over 95mph because no bowler that's bowled at such express pace as ever done so without allegations of chucking.

I won't go as far to say the ICC is committing fraud or conspriacy over this - i just question the the 15-degree rule & always have. Media or fans never see the results or are we privy to see the testing process live - so this the forever grey area that we can never draw a clear conclusion from.

Plus while i understand what you saying in the comparison with football goal-line tech & DRS - i don't think you can compare those scenario with a bowler chucking.

Chucking IMO is close to a cricketer taking steroids or match fixing. A chucking bowler - especially a successful one is enhancing his own ability & his teams chances of being successful via illegal means, in match situations.

it's clearly not, a player diving in football would constitute the exact same thing, an illegal means to achieve an advantage. you wouldn't ban these people similarly for drug taking. also, if diving was met with similar bans wouldn't you think there should be some sort of review of the incidents.

I'll come back to the bit about grey areas.

Yes ICC certainly has allowed bowlers the test the limits, this is why the "doosra" from off-spinner is so controversial & why i say it needs to be universally banned or a new limit needs to be created for it - then accept it.

Because more people believe (i see Ashley Mallet former AUS off-spinner was mentioned as a skeptic in the above article) - that the doosra is a ball that cannot be bowled without a bowler throwing. Thus the bowlers who the testing show can bowl it legally - majority don't believe.

Sanjay Manjrekar was saying this last month with regards to grey area of "lab testing" & the fact that the ICC are working on getting such live match testing technology - Match Point : Laws of the Game | Manjrekar: Need technology to monitor bowling actions live | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

if they can get in match testing, brilliant, that would be ideal. but lets be honest, you want it because you reckon it would confirm things you've already made up in your mind. I'm pretty sure if testing came out and proved ajmal or whoever was within the 15 degree law you'd say either the 15 degree law needs scaled back to 10 or that the testing was wrong.

the problem with your majority is it's mostly just some australian and english ex-cricketers. expert scientific analysis by K D Aginsky, T D Noakes,
D G Lloyd, J Alderson, B C Elliott , Mark A King, Maurice R Yeadon. People that study this sort of thing for a living don't agree with them and have looked at biometrics, 3d modelling .

I think you are unaware how much detailed information there is. read aginsky's paper on why the naked eye or TV does not give you an accurate picture. you can read murali's bowling report, in full, if you whack it into google. (The Murali report - there you go)

ultimately though, you've got some australian board members that are in a bit of a grump because they have crap spinners, and I'm citing people with doctorates in biomechanical modelling with no vested interests.

 

[War]

what? really? who do you think they should turn to when they need to help a bowler remodel or work on his action?

and even if this wasn't a factor (and it obviously is) then blaming sammy for poorly managing his bowlers points to a windies specific issue, you might even suggest a spin bowling coach could help the captain manage his spinner better. it's not like sammy is making all the tactical decisions is he? surely no one believes captains are the only tactical voice in a teams set up?

A spin coach can help you would technique and teach you to bowl new deliveries of course - but i don't know that a spin coach can change a action you have been using for 20+ years as the case is with Shillingford. Especially an action where the "doosra" is key part of his success of being on the fastest windies bowler in history to 50 test wickets.

On the Sammy issue, no i don't believe that a spin coach would really have prevented the misuse of windies spinners in game scenario. That IMO is just a case of the stupidity of the widneis selectors in which by picking Sammy as a part of test team, their attack is always unbalanced. Right now they have taken it to another insane level in the current test with Sammy now picked as a new-ball bowler.


But overall though just to quote you & the article:

I said at the time, this is just more evidence of how the WICB couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

still no spin coach employed, players with previous bans left so their action deteriorates again, no testing in domestic cricket to try and ensure bowlers with unclean actions are caught.

However, the fact that Shillingford has been suspended a second time also raises questions about the set-up in the Caribbean. If they could not fix him the first time, what chance of it working now?

In the current era, West Indies are producing a decent line of spinners - both orthodox and unorthodox - but it is an area underserved by coaching. On the current tour of New Zealand, despite spin being a key part of West Indies' squad, there is no spin-bowling representative in the coaching group. This is not just the case with West Indies, but they are one of the stark examples. And because spin was not a major part of their cricket in the 1980s and 1990s there are not many homegrown role models to utilise.

Shillingford & Narine as unorthodox bowlers have on emerged since 2010. As i showed before the large majority of windies spinners since their decline as a great team were just average orthodox spinners.

Samuels is essentially a batsmen that bowls part-time as you obviously know.


You and the cricinfo writer is making it sound as if Shillingford is one of long line of spinners with questionable actions they have been producing & they don't have the expertise to check.

When Johan Botha was bowling superb, it was because of his doosra - he had AUS batsmen in a gear in two ODI series in 2009 & their T20 world cup semi final placing. Then after he was called, checked & his action changed with no doosra - he became useless

no idea where this is going but the point is fast bowlers chuck too, and often enough that they shouldn't be disqualified from a discussion on chuckers. numerous fast bowlers have been called on chucking, and tested and some banned. maybe if they're banning the doosra they should also ban anyone from going over 95mph because no bowler that's bowled at such express pace as ever done so without allegations of chucking.

You showed me the video with Baptiste so i was simply asking, if you did that to show if in your view, he was an example of previous generation fast bowler who chucked and was not caught? That is all.

Also i wasn't disqualifying from the discussion of "chuckers" - all i said is that in this specific debate about doosra bowling off-spinner i would leave them out. Mainly, because we don't have the same proliferation of quick bowlers with questionable actions in the game, that divides opinions like the doosra bowlers.

Am Mitchell Johnson has been bowling 95mph all year - nobody has questioned him for chucking. Many other bowlers in the speed gun era of Shane Bond, Waqar Younis, Mohammad Zahid, Donald, Steyn have clean reps - so i'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

The only bowlers who had some doubts over them when they bowled that quick was Akhtar, Lee and Tait.

Plus pre speed gun era bowlers who many felt bowled 95 mph at some point of their careers such as; Holding, Imran Khan, Andy Roberts, Garth Le Roux, Trueman, Larwood, Tyson, Lillee, Thompson, Wes Hall all have clean reps according to historians.

Only pre speed gun era pacemen who weren't banned for throwing who i've heard/read had questionable actions were windies duo of Charlie Griffith & Roy Gilchrist.

it's clearly not, a player diving in football would constitute the exact same thing, an illegal means to achieve an advantage. you wouldn't ban these people similarly for drug taking. also, if diving was met with similar bans wouldn't you think there should be some sort of review of the incidents.

I'll come back to the bit about grey areas.

I don't agree my friend. Maybe the plain differentiation of the wording - diving in football & a bowler throwing in cricket is an "illegal means to achieve an advantage" - but this is where the cross sports comparisons could be a bit tricky.

As we know the aim in football is who scores the most goals wins & you can only use your feet, chest & head to score a goal.

In cricket its who score the most runs wins. A batsman & a team scores runs using via a bat (excluding the extra's). If a batsman takes steroids like they do in baseball, he could hit the ball harder, which would be cheating.

Bowlers can only bowl a ball using their arms obviously - and throwing instead of bowling as the ICC rules states, can give a bowler a serious level of potency from his arms - that he cannot generate via a ICC regulated bowling action.

What human motion can a football player make with his legs, head or chest to score a goal - that is similar to what a bowler can do if he attempts to throw a ball - instead of bowling the ball?. None really.

Diving in football is probably more comparable to batsmen who don't walk if they know they hit the ball. Old school football players always say back in the 60s, 70s, 80s - players did not dive, cause it was against the spirit of the game, not professional etc.

Most divers do it because they know their is no technology to catch them & the ref can't be certain, so they deliberately put the referee's under pressure by diving in key area's on the pitch.

In cricket back then most batsmen walked in the non technology days, in a effort to make life easier for the umpire. But in the last 20-30 years with technology, batsmen who edge the balll would rather stand, give the umpire the extra headache to see if he will give them out - which is wrong & against the spirit of the game.

DRS has helped to sort make batsmen more honest, because they know now if they edge a ball, they might as well walk, since they will be exposed. But as the recent Stuart Broad saga showed - batsmen will still try to test the technology.

if they can get in match testing, brilliant, that would be ideal. but lets be honest, you want it because you reckon it would confirm things you've already made up in your mind. I'm pretty sure if testing came out and proved ajmal or whoever was within the 15 degree law you'd say either the 15 degree law needs scaled back to 10 or that the testing was wrong.

the problem with your majority is it's mostly just some australian and english ex-cricketers. expert scientific analysis by K D Aginsky, T D Noakes,
D G Lloyd, J Alderson, B C Elliott , Mark A King, Maurice R Yeadon. People that study this sort of thing for a living don't agree with them and have looked at biometrics, 3d modelling .

I think you are unaware how much detailed information there is. read aginsky's paper on why the naked eye or TV does not give you an accurate picture. you can read murali's bowling report, in full, if you whack it into google. (The Murali report - there you go)

ultimately though, you've got some australian board members that are in a bit of a grump because they have crap spinners, and I'm citing people with doctorates in biomechanical modelling with no vested interests.

@ "but lets be honest, you want it because you reckon it would confirm things you've already made up in your mind" - i didn't know you could read minds and i've noticed overtime you have strange way of stereotyping.

I assure you that if they get match testing soon & that shows me that Ajmal, Hafeez, Gozi, Razzaq actions are cleaner than Shillingford & that Shilly indeed chucks - i'm would be happy to change my view on this.

Until then i remain totally unconvinced about the finding & question the legitimacy of the doosra.

However i'd admit i have not studied the findings of those people or read the Murali report - but then again how many cricket fans or former player skeptics have? In a way both sides are guility, this is why i say the topic has much grey area's that need a total review globally.

Windies captain Sammy & manager Richardson on cricinfo when the media pressed the the question from them about...."there is a feeling more bowlers worldwide have bad actions - but Shilly has been unfairly treated/targeted" - they had no choice but to bit their tongue & not curse out - http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-west-indies-2013-14/content/story/701421.html

Plus watching part of the NZ/WI test last night Simon Doull was saying - he thinks Shilly was unfairly called, but he believes the ICC is out to get other bowlers with suspect actions & Shilly being banned is warning shot to them. So this thing clearly heating up....

I don't believe its just a AUS/ENG thing although obviously they don't support their young spinners bowling it (something as a supporter of both countries i'm glad they don't). But i've seen Windies legends such as Gibbs, Holding & Viv Richards be very vocal about the legitimacy of the doosra.

Holding i know for years along with Bedi used to call Murali a javelin thrower, before he sort of eased up his critique of Murali after he did those tests on live TV circa 2004 with Ravi Shastri/Mark Nicholas with the brace on.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

we'll just have to disagree on the coach thing. I think if a player has already been reported for his action in the past he should be managed carefully lest he regresses to bending his arm again. we can be unsure about the testing but something must be going on with shillingford as I do not believe it can be as blatant as the ICC just deciding that he is a bowler they'll make an example of and manipulating the testing in some way to achieve that result.

can't agree on the drugs thing either, I think that is making it sound way more sinister than it is. Murali did everything, even opting to take tests when he wasn't obliged to and obviously the arm brace thing (the key of which was that he still looked like he was straightening when doing so.) to put him and others like him along side drug takers is just not on.

this is absolutely essential reading for anyone interested in chucking and murali in general - Murali's redemption, and our arrogance | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

imo, you can bowl a doosra legally and so it's impossible to ban. that's what I've gathered from reading some of the more in depth articles.


fair, enough, that was bit cheeky of me to say that I apologise for that. there is a little bit about confirmation bias in the article I linked though which I felt was maybe relevant but it's not really on to tell you what you think.

I don't think I can think of anything more to add without repeating myself but do have a read of that article and if you have any thoughts on it whack them here.

 

[War]

MCC news : MCC reiterates World Test Championship support | Cricket News | Marylebone Cricket Club | ESPN Cricinfo

Plan for 'wearable testing' of suspect actions​

The possibility of testing suspect bowling actions 'in game' has moved a step closer, with the ICC set to present a plan for implementing wearable technology. Currently, bowlers must be sent for biomechanical analysis at the ICC's testing facility at the University of Western Australia.

A joint MCC-ICC project to develop a method of monitoring the degree of flexion and extension in a bowler's arm during competition - rather than in laboratory conditions - has so far progressed successfully, with the MCC stating that "recent studies had shown a strong correlation between testing in the laboratory and live testing in a match situation".

Geoff Allardice, the ICC's general manager of cricket, put forward the latest update to the MCC cricket committee, with the ICC now intending to move the three-stage project into its final stage.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

been wondering if you read the murali bowing report? I found it quite good for seeing how testing is done and it did go some way to convincing me that testing is actually carried out quite acurately. summarised in bullet points if you didn't.

*international level spin coach present
*Bowler bowls on full size wicket with full run up caught by high speed cameras
*spin coach selects the best 6 deliveries (best as in "rip" the most, land on a good lentgh, bowled appropriate pace. i.e. test match standard)
*run up, ball speed and action compared with in match deliveries to ensure lab deliveries are as close as possible to match ones.
*anthropometric assessment of players arm to help.

an interesting point to note is, as they could be potentially ending careers and fining players money the tests have to be thorough enough to stand up in a court of law.

it was quite interesting for reasons very specific to murali (one odd outcome was that the bowling coach charged with remediating his action to ensure it didn't fall outside the limits noted murali sometimes unintentionally altered his run up start position as he went on, making him aware of this probably turned him into a better, more consistent bowler) but relating to this case I still don't see how shillingford is victimised when ajamal et al. weren't.

in match testing certainly sounds good for bowlers on a probationary period though.

 

[War]

^^

Nah yo, i aint take the time out the read it yet. Which link you got those bullet point from?