Drift

[someblokecalleddave]

Anyone got any vids to show on best ways to get drift?

Would be nice wouldn't it? I keep asking the question - if it's that easy to do - can 'Very good' spinners do it at will - say for instance stand at the crease at the start of the over and plan to bowl alternate drifting and non-drifting balls and then execute it? It seems not, there's an element of luck to it - sometimes it comes out well other times it doesn't, but that's not definitive - I've yet to get an answer from a 1st class bowler. But, it's interesting that Swanne and Panesar both got shed loads of drift in the test in India, but the Indians couldn't drift the ball at all????

 

[futureblackcap]

Would be nice wouldn't it? I keep asking the question - if it's that easy to do - can 'Very good' spinners do it at will - say for instance stand at the crease at the start of the over and plan to bowl alternate drifting and non-drifting balls and then execute it? It seems not, there's an element of luck to it - sometimes it comes out well other times it doesn't, but that's not definitive - I've yet to get an answer from a 1st class bowler. But, it's interesting that Swanne and Panesar both got shed loads of drift in the test in India, but the Indians couldn't drift the ball at all????

Because we aren't getting coverage of the IND/ENG test match on tv here. Did you watch the seam for the England and Indian spinners, while it's spinning through the air? Was England's seam "more up right"? I think drift has something to do with the overhead conditions as well so maybe a slight breeze helped England while it ceased when India was bowling? Just my thoughts hehe.

 

[shrek]

Would be nice wouldn't it? I keep asking the question - if it's that easy to do - can 'Very good' spinners do it at will - say for instance stand at the crease at the start of the over and plan to bowl alternate drifting and non-drifting balls and then execute it? It seems not, there's an element of luck to it - sometimes it comes out well other times it doesn't, but that's not definitive - I've yet to get an answer from a 1st class bowler. But, it's interesting that Swanne and Panesar both got shed loads of drift in the test in India, but the Indians couldn't drift the ball at all????

Part of the reason could be the speed they bowled at. I remember reading somewhere on this forum that you need to be above a certain speed to get any drift at all (and it has to have high enough revs of overspin at that speed). I felt that in the mumbai test match, ashwin and Harbhajan weren't really putting as many revs as swann and panesar - they were almost putting the ball there assuming the wicket will help them.
Ojha's natural speed when he gets maximum revs is a good 5 kmph lower than swann and ~9kmph lower than panesar's average speed, still he got huge amounts of drift in both the test matches

That said, I watched the match closely, but I didn't see the massive drift you are talking about Dave. Swann got some drift in the first innings but I have seen him get a lot more drift in other matches. And panesar barely had to rely on drift, he was beating batsmen all ends up just off the wicket. It might be a slight illusion due to the angle from which panesar bowls though.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Part of the reason could be the speed they bowled at. I remember reading somewhere on this forum that you need to be above a certain speed to get any drift at all (and it has to have high enough revs of overspin at that speed). I felt that in the mumbai test match, ashwin and Harbhajan weren't really putting as many revs as swann and panesar - they were almost putting the ball there assuming the wicket will help them.
Ojha's natural speed when he gets maximum revs is a good 5 kmph lower than swann and ~9kmph lower than panesar's average speed, still he got huge amounts of drift in both the test matches

That said, I watched the match closely, but I didn't see the massive drift you are talking about Dave. Swann got some drift in the first innings but I have seen him get a lot more drift in other matches. And panesar barely had to rely on drift, he was beating batsmen all ends up just off the wicket. It might be a slight illusion due to the angle from which panesar bowls though.

You say that Shrek, but the kid I kind of look after at our club Frank Farrington is only 12 - 13 years old and yet he ocassionally and quite consistently on some days gets the ball to drift and he can't be bowling it much faster than I do if at all? Yeah with regards Swanne and Panesar, it wasn't Warney style drift, but it was more than the Indian blokes.

 

[Mugshot]

Would be nice wouldn't it? I keep asking the question - if it's that easy to do - can 'Very good' spinners do it at will - say for instance stand at the crease at the start of the over and plan to bowl alternate drifting and non-drifting balls and then execute it? It seems not, there's an element of luck to it - sometimes it comes out well other times it doesn't, but that's not definitive - I've yet to get an answer from a 1st class bowler. But, it's interesting that Swanne and Panesar both got shed loads of drift in the test in India, but the Indians couldn't drift the ball at all????

It certainly would. I do wonder about luck as you say because its the one thing Ive truly tried to understand in bowling but could never get my head round. Your post helped me, but kind of hindered me too lol. Thanks, great post

 

[someblokecalleddave]

It certainly would. I do wonder about luck as you say because its the one thing Ive truly tried to understand in bowling but could never get my head round. Your post helped me, but kind of hindered me too lol. Thanks, great post

Same here, I read stuff on the subject and suddenly there seems to be an element of clarity and then I try and work it through on paper, in my head, more reading etc and within a short period I'm back to first base and no clearer. I really think it has something to do with the way you learn, I'm a lecturer in art subjects and I'm pretty useless at maths and physics and this is down to learning styles, the way I learn is primarily visual and through repitition and practice. I just cannot grasp the explanations that are offered by different people, some of the theory makes sense but then when I visualise and run it through what happens trying to match it with the physics components - it all comes apart. From what I gather it does seems that 98% of people just accept the basic premise of 'Spin it hard' and get the ball spinning at about 45 degrees or thereabouts to the direction it's travelling in and then with a combination of speed and wind direction it comes together sometimes. What I do know though is that your shape through the bowling action and some of the fundamentals with regards the bowling action seem to increase the potential to get drift. I'm fairly certain in Woolmers analysis of Warnes bowling in his book the art and science of cricket - he more or less concludes that no-one quite gets it!

 

[Mugshot]

Same here, I read stuff on the subject and suddenly there seems to be an element of clarity and then I try and work it through on paper, in my head, more reading etc and within a short period I'm back to first base and no clearer. I really think it has something to do with the way you learn, I'm a lecturer in art subjects and I'm pretty useless at maths and physics and this is down to learning styles, the way I learn is primarily visual and through repitition and practice. I just cannot grasp the explanations that are offered by different people, some of the theory makes sense but then when I visualise and run it through what happens trying to match it with the physics components - it all comes apart. From what I gather it does seems that 98% of people just accept the basic premise of 'Spin it hard' and get the ball spinning at about 45 degrees or thereabouts to the direction it's travelling in and then with a combination of speed and wind direction it comes together sometimes. What I do know though is that your shape through the bowling action and some of the fundamentals with regards the bowling action seem to increase the potential to get drift. I'm fairly certain in Woolmers analysis of Warnes bowling in his book the art and science of cricket - he more or less concludes that no-one quite gets it!

Great post and your exactly in the same boat as me. Im a Business Analyst and numbers are my game, but this doesnt mean I get it. Like you say, I get my head around it...or think I do but then end up back where I started. I think some people just get it and I am unfortunately not one of those people!

 

[SLA]

I'm playing indoor cricket this winter and find that although the seamless plastic cricket balls we use don't swing and barely turn, I can still trouble the batsman by getting huge drift in from outside off stump if I put plenty of revs on it.

So: I think this suggests that drift is nothing to do with the seam, seeing as these balls don't have one.

 

[futureblackcap]

I'm playing indoor cricket this winter and find that although the seamless plastic cricket balls we use don't swing and barely turn, I can still trouble the batsman by getting huge drift in from outside off stump if I put plenty of revs on it.

So: I think this suggests that drift is nothing to do with the seam, seeing as these balls don't have one.

The plot thickens hehe. One of life's many mysteries.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

I'm playing indoor cricket this winter and find that although the seamless plastic cricket balls we use don't swing and barely turn, I can still trouble the batsman by getting huge drift in from outside off stump if I put plenty of revs on it.

So: I think this suggests that drift is nothing to do with the seam, seeing as these balls don't have one.

Oh Jesus - here we go again.... I suppose that makes it even more complicated...

 

[SLA]

Oh Jesus - here we go again.... I suppose that makes it even more complicated...

I think it probably simplifies things. It suggests its just the direction and strength of the spin that makes the ball drift, combined with an appropriate bowling pace, the presence or alignment of a seam on the ball is basically irrelevent.

A prevailing wind will probably help. Humidity I'm not sure about. Cloud cover helps swing, but I'm not sure about drift, I think drift is more robust than swing, which can be a bit temperamental.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

I think it probably simplifies things. It suggests its just the direction and strength of the spin that makes the ball drift, combined with an appropriate bowling pace, the presence or alignment of a seam on the ball is basically irrelevent.

A prevailing wind will probably help. Humidity I'm not sure about. Cloud cover helps swing, but I'm not sure about drift, I think drift is more robust than swing, which can be a bit temperamental.

That's interesting - are you suggesting that in your own experience that drift isn't tempremental?

 

[SLA]

That's interesting - are you suggesting that in your own experience that drift isn't tempremental?

It varies in as much as sometimes I try to bowl a big indrifting stock ball but get it slightly wrong and the ball comes out with too much backspin or too little sidespin and neither drifts nor turns. But every time the ball comes out how I intend it, with hard sidespin, it definitely drifts in the air. I find it much easier to drift the ball than turn the ball on some pitches.

 

[leftie600]

I think you guys have drifted on a tangent here (ha!), some things to note:

1. The amount of spin is very important, the more the better
2. The condition of the ball has an effect, the newer the batter (basically, good seam and smooth on both sides)
3. The seam position is very important, a scrambled seam stuffs the aerodynamics for drift (think of it like an egg beater stuffing up the flow of the air). If there was no seam then giving the ball any side spin will result in drift (like a golf ball)
4. The 45 degree thing works as it is a balance between pure side spin and top spin, pure side spin only starts to drift when the ball drops therefore if you have a mix of top spin and side spin the ball will drift more (as it is dropping faster)
5. The weather does have an effect, I think I've got an earlier post here explaining why
6. Basically pure side spin drifts when the ball starts to drop in the air and a 'UFO' delivery will drift straight away (this is why sometimes those part timers who bowl undercut spin get a lot of drift and no spin).
7. MacGill managed the same amount of drfit on his day and he did not have the same biomechanics as Warne, Warne's amazing drift was due to a mix of 1 and 4 above. Woolmer's piece is wrong in that it specifies Warne's action rather than what Warne does to obtain maximimum spin combined with the ball in the 45 degree position.
8. Will getting everything right guarantee drift? No, as per 2 & 5Warne did not always get the ball to drift with old balls nor did he get the ball to drift when the weather conditions were completely against it

The question was asked why Swann & Monty obtained drift and Ashwin & Ohja didn't, excluding the whole 45 degree thing, is because Swann & Monty give the ball a genuine rip whereas Ashwin & Ohja don't. When Ashwin and Ohja did get turn it was on a pitch where anyone could make it deviate.

 

[SLA]

I think you guys have drifted on a tangent here (ha!), some things to note:

1. The amount of spin is very important, the more the better
2. The condition of the ball has an effect, the newer the batter (basically, good seam and smooth on both sides)
3. The seam position is very important, a scrambled seam stuffs the aerodynamics for drift (think of it like an egg beater stuffing up the flow of the air). If there was no seam then giving the ball any side spin will result in drift (like a golf ball)
4. The 45 degree thing works as it is a balance between pure side spin and top spin, pure side spin only starts to drift when the ball drops therefore if you have a mix of top spin and side spin the ball will drift more (as it is dropping faster)
5. The weather does have an effect, I think I've got an earlier post here explaining why
6. Basically pure side spin drifts when the ball starts to drop in the air and a 'UFO' delivery will drift straight away (this is why sometimes those part timers who bowl undercut spin get a lot of drift and no spin).
7. MacGill managed the same amount of drfit on his day and he did not have the same biomechanics as Warne, Warne's amazing drift was due to a mix of 1 and 4 above. Woolmer's piece is wrong in that it specifies Warne's action rather than what Warne does to obtain maximimum spin combined with the ball in the 45 degree position.
8. Will getting everything right guarantee drift? No, as per 2 & 5Warne did not always get the ball to drift with old balls nor did he get the ball to drift when the weather conditions were completely against it

The question was asked why Swann & Monty obtained drift and Ashwin & Ohja didn't, excluding the whole 45 degree thing, is because Swann & Monty give the ball a genuine rip whereas Ashwin & Ohja don't. When Ashwin and Ohja did get turn it was on a pitch where anyone could make it deviate.

Re 3. That's interesting, so you're saying that the seam isn't actually something that helps drift, but is actually something that can destroy it if you get it wrong?

I always assumed that when people said the ball didn't drift because the seam was scrambled, it wasn't actually the seam position itself that was the problem, but more the fact that the ball came out of the hand with the axis of rotation slightly wrong, which simultaneously killed the drift and scrambled the seam.

As you say both golf balls and table tennis balls have huge drift and neither of them have a seam.

 

[someblokecalleddave]

Re 3. That's interesting, so you're saying that the seam isn't actually something that helps drift, but is actually something that can destroy it if you get it wrong?

I always assumed that when people said the ball didn't drift because the seam was scrambled, it wasn't actually the seam position itself that was the problem, but more the fact that the ball came out of the hand with the axis of rotation slightly wrong, which simultaneously killed the drift and scrambled the seam.

As you say both golf balls and table tennis balls have huge drift and neither of them have a seam.

Golf balls need to be kept out of the equation as far as I'm concerned, they've been developed it seems with a lot more attention to detail, with more research money put into the analysis of the aero-dynamics because every golfer utilises the spin, whereas in cricket a less of an economic viability with only a handful of people concerned with the spin-dynamics, there's very little lab evidence. With golf balls it's the dimples and they keep it simple in that it's all about the back-spin and their only concern is keeping the ball stable and in the air as long as possible? Table tennis balls are slightly different as they do similar things to tennis players with a variety of slices, but they utilise top and back-spin mostly. I'm not sure whether table tennis ball comparisons will help or confuse? Surely (Only thinking about this quickly) the table tennis side-swerve is a result of the manus effect so if the ball swerves to the right going away from you it would normally be spun with flying saucer type spin in a clockwise direction?

 

[SLA]

Golf balls need to be kept out of the equation as far as I'm concerned, they've been developed it seems with a lot more attention to detail, with more research money put into the analysis of the aero-dynamics because every golfer utilises the spin, whereas in cricket a less of an economic viability with only a handful of people concerned with the spin-dynamics, there's very little lab evidence. With golf balls it's the dimples and they keep it simple in that it's all about the back-spin and their only concern is keeping the ball stable and in the air as long as possible? Table tennis balls are slightly different as they do similar things to tennis players with a variety of slices, but they utilise top and back-spin mostly. I'm not sure whether table tennis ball comparisons will help or confuse? Surely (Only thinking about this quickly) the table tennis side-swerve is a result of the manus effect so if the ball swerves to the right going away from you it would normally be spun with flying saucer type spin in a clockwise direction?

Yes you can make table tennis balls bend like crazy. If you ever pick one up and bowl a legbreak/offbreak with one you will find it drifts like crazy. I used to do this in the kitchen when I was a little kid and drove my mum crazy trying to make it bend all the way round the counter and bounce back on the other side.

Whether golf balls or cricket balls or tennis balls or footballs or table tennis balls or baseballs or any other type of ball you can think off, the same direction spin produces the same Magnus force and the same resultant movement.

 

[leftie600]

Golf balls need to be kept out of the equation as far as I'm concerned, they've been developed it seems with a lot more attention to detail, with more research money put into the analysis of the aero-dynamics because every golfer utilises the spin, whereas in cricket a less of an economic viability with only a handful of people concerned with the spin-dynamics, there's very little lab evidence. With golf balls it's the dimples and they keep it simple in that it's all about the back-spin and their only concern is keeping the ball stable and in the air as long as possible? Table tennis balls are slightly different as they do similar things to tennis players with a variety of slices, but they utilise top and back-spin mostly. I'm not sure whether table tennis ball comparisons will help or confuse? Surely (Only thinking about this quickly) the table tennis side-swerve is a result of the manus effect so if the ball swerves to the right going away from you it would normally be spun with flying saucer type spin in a clockwise direction?

That's true but due to the extreme forces a golf ball goes through you will see the same drift effects after a shot (if you top a shot and get it in the air you watch it plummet it into the ground, if you get back spin on the ball you watch it rise through the air and if you get side spin on the ball watch the ball swerve sideways towards the nearest group of people or water hazard). I only mentioned golf balls as it is something that I'm familiar with, table tennis balls are a better example though.

 

[leftie600]

Re 3. That's interesting, so you're saying that the seam isn't actually something that helps drift, but is actually something that can destroy it if you get it wrong?

I always assumed that when people said the ball didn't drift because the seam was scrambled, it wasn't actually the seam position itself that was the problem, but more the fact that the ball came out of the hand with the axis of rotation slightly wrong, which simultaneously killed the drift and scrambled the seam.

As you say both golf balls and table tennis balls have huge drift and neither of them have a seam.

That's exactly right, naturally if you can spin the ball hard enough you can negate the effects of a scrambled seam (as my Dad put it, anything can fly with enough power!) but if you can do that we'd probably be watching you on TV.

 

[Ben Baker]

Perhaps it's not so much the angle of the seam(towards slips) if you would look at the ball from above the wicket, maybe it's the slight slanting of the seam towards the batsman that helps produce the drift. I'm not so sure that when I'm bowling my overspun leg breaks that I am getting a a little slant or tilt as I would think of it. I think that's what may be causing my overspun leg breaks not to drift as my wrist action has evolved over the past year and felt different over the course of time, I'm getting revs on the ball and people near me can hear my fingers as I flick the ball and I hear it fizzing in the air as it leaves my hand. I have been trying different things with my wrist to get it to slant/tilt in with the overspun leg break, but I don't think that I have been releasing it that way. I might have to paint an old ball white on one side to see what sort of tilt/slant and angle of seam I am getting, I'm thinking that I'm getting no tilt at all on the overspun leg breaks, or even tilt on the opposite direction which I have a feeling that Stuart Macgill did with alot of his earlier bowling when he didn't get any drift and almost looked like he was getting drift in the opposite direction to me :S

edit: Also looking at football(or Soccer as it's called here) you can be sure that any time a football that's kicked to make it spin on a horizontal axis makes it curve. In my leg spin bowling I am wanting to get some horizontal axis spin and such is the slant or tilt, but not too much so that it still hits the seam and turns. I remember a while back on the news when a scientist explained that a ball starts curving as it's beginning to slow down, this was when Roberto Carlos scored that amazing free kick.

edit2: Just found this, it's not the video I was talking about but I found it interesting.

These articles are also interesting:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...dden-advantage-of-long-distance-soccer-shots/
http://io9.com/5628135/physics-forc...ew-equation-to-explain-impossible-soccer-kick
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11153466
That might explain why I'm getting a hell of alot of dip and no drift, as the seam is probably vertical in my overspun leg breaks. I wonder what would happen if I could produce a ball that was a top-spinner but had a slant or tilt in. Would it drift?

That makes sense. It would also explain why finger spinners tend to get more consistent drift. Its much harder to spin the ball on a vertical axis using that action. I bowl off spin every now and then and it's extremely difficult to bowl the ball WITHOUT a slant. Take swan for example, he seems to drift the ball about as consistently as anyone out there at the moment. His deliveries are quite slanted, which would explain the drift. I think it's important that we look at off spinners deliveries because they seem to get more consistent drift. Their action allows for a well presented seam AND a slant consistently.