Plastic Balls For Practice

[MagicDave]

Thanks S SLA . I'm working from the bottom up. The best thing I got when learning seam bowling with the wrong balls, was the confidence that I didn't bowl many bad deliveries. If I bowled a poor ball, I was sure the next one would be good and this worked in a game situation (although my bowling was/is one dimensional - plan a delivery and try and bowl it).

I currently don't believe I have the skills required to bowl spin in a match (I'm about up to chucking some down in nets level). Would visualisation of the ignored constraints be enough. E.g. Should I not practice accuracy on my own first as though the batman were about to play a specific shot? It feels slightly chicken and egg - without the basic skills how can you practice as though in a match - although I understand the principle (its like the Bruce Lee's film quote in Enter of the Dragon - 'Boards don't hit back')

 

[SLA]

Thanks S SLA . I'm working from the bottom up. The best thing I got when learning seam bowling with the wrong balls, was the confidence that I didn't bowl many bad deliveries. If I bowled a poor ball, I was sure the next one would be good and this worked in a game situation (although my bowling was/is one dimensional - plan a delivery and try and bowl it).

I currently don't believe I have the skills required to bowl spin in a match (I'm about up to chucking some down in nets level). Would visualisation of the ignored constraints be enough. E.g. Should I not practice accuracy on my own first as though the batman were about to play a specific shot? It feels slightly chicken and egg - without the basic skills how can you practice as though in a match - although I understand the principle (its like the Bruce Lee's film quote in Enter of the Dragon - 'Boards don't hit back')

1st step is to learn how to bowl - well enough that you are able to get the ball to the batsman without hitting the side netting. You can do this without a batsman, all you are trying to do is bowl 5 balls out of 6 in roughly the right place. Get your run-up and your basic body action consistent.

2nd step is to introduce some spin, and still try to get 5 out of 6 in the right place. Again, you can do this without a batsman, but make sure everything else is as close to a net/match setting as possible.

3rd step is to bowl in nets, and try to adjust your bowling to focus on making both scoring and survival difficult for the batsman, rather than worrying too much about trying to impress everyone by how much you can turn the ball (which is ultimately irrelevant, a party trick and nothing more)

4th step is to bowl in low-level games, and start to figure out some of the more enjoyable aspects of spin bowling, like how to spot a batsman's weakness, how to adjust to different pitches and game situations, and how to use the field to lure the batsman into your trap.

 

[boogiespinner]

Depending on whether you mean the leather version like this:
http://www.cricketdirect.co.uk/Cata...lls/Readers-Indoor-Yellow-Cricket-Ball-119026
or the plastic version like this
http://www.itsjustcricket.co.uk/cri...s-c38/readers-indoor-cricket-ball-yellow-p543

The plastic version seems like a very similar ball to the old wind ball. I got a box of 12 equivalent balls to that from ebay for about £15. They are indistinguisable to the Readers version. Bear in mind I was starting from nothing without any coaching. I did find they would offer a reasonable level of feedback (would spit forwards low with overspin/forward spin, spit sideways for a conventional leg break and bounce high for a scrambled seam). They also drift/swing MUCH easier than a real ball. For someone who can already bowl, I think they would have limited value beyond 'keeping your eye in' - and you might find a tape ball offers a similar opportunity for that (they split too quickly for learning seam bowling but are cheap)?

yes, the plastic ones. They feel very much like a cricket ball when you spin them, but are lighter. When I bowl them, they have a tendency to fly down the offside.

 

[MagicDave]

Thanks. Sounds like my idea of progression steps is similar.

Interesting about bowling in the nets. I read an article on pitchvision where they were encouraging seam bowlers to almost ignore the batsmen and concentrate on line and length. The underlying idea being that with the average indoor net the ball on a length would arrive at the batter at an easy striking position and the tendency was therefore to bowl short on the nets - something that wouldn't help come game time. Without really thinking it through, I probably would have adopted the same pattern, but I guess for a spin bowler you are constantly looking to adapt (for the batter facing you - the conditions etc) so its not the same. I had never really thought about it before.

Your point about big spin being irrelevant (should that be unnecessary?) is also interesting. I have previously read all the encouragement for beginners just concentrating on spinning big. My initial take on this was that what you need above all is movement of the ball. Getting more spin increases your chance of movement through the air and off the pitch and hence putting lots of spin on the ball was a good thing(TM). Thinking it through I can see that whilst large turn off the pitch is sometimes a good thing (for example if you can put doubt into the batters mind), every time it misses the bat and fails to hit the stumps is a ball that isn't taking a wicket (I'm ignoring red mist charge stumpings)

Thanks again. Its encouraging to feel I'm moving in the right direction.

 

[MagicDave]

yes, the plastic ones. They feel very much like a cricket ball when you spin them, but are lighter. When I bowl them, they have a tendency to fly down the offside.

Fair do's. I have the knock offs for much less. Can't help with the offside (although when I do that it is normally either because I have fallen away during the delivery or have rushed my arm through to try and get more pace instead of pivoting faster).
Those balls do move in the air nicely though. I expect to be really disappointed once I start spinning leather balls but I am keen to know I'm at least using the correct technique. They'll also spit off the floor in a satisfying if somewhat unrealistic way. I'm looking at them as a confirmation of technique aid.

 

[SLA]

Thanks. Sounds like my idea of progression steps is similar.

Interesting about bowling in the nets. I read an article on pitchvision where they were encouraging seam bowlers to almost ignore the batsmen and concentrate on line and length. The underlying idea being that with the average indoor net the ball on a length would arrive at the batter at an easy striking position and the tendency was therefore to bowl short on the nets - something that wouldn't help come game time. Without really thinking it through, I probably would have adopted the same pattern, but I guess for a spin bowler you are constantly looking to adapt (for the batter facing you - the conditions etc) so its not the same. I had never really thought about it before.

Your point about big spin being irrelevant (should that be unnecessary?) is also interesting. I have previously read all the encouragement for beginners just concentrating on spinning big. My initial take on this was that what you need above all is movement of the ball. Getting more spin increases your chance of movement through the air and off the pitch and hence putting lots of spin on the ball was a good thing(TM). Thinking it through I can see that whilst large turn off the pitch is sometimes a good thing (for example if you can put doubt into the batters mind), every time it misses the bat and fails to hit the stumps is a ball that isn't taking a wicket (I'm ignoring red mist charge stumpings)

Thanks again. Its encouraging to feel I'm moving in the right direction.

Big spin and big turn are two very different things!

Turn is only one weapon of the spin bowler. Dip, drift, pace, bounce, angle all all just as important

 

[boogiespinner]

I have quite a low arm, so it may be a release thing. I have decided somewhat to let my action develop organically.

As you may have noticed, I have a very different philosophy to SLA (as do others on this forum), and am of the school that you should seek to spin, and spin big, and later apply the discipline of accuracy. This indeed the advice of gurus such as Richie Benaud, Peter Philpott, and Shane Warne (in a recent video there is a nice quote of his, "you're a SPIN bowler, not a SLOW bowler").

Spinning big (as SLA notes) doesn't necessarily mean sharp sideways deviation, you may have lots of topspin going on and that is a desirable thing, but you have the option of big turn (if you can bowl a 45 + degree seam angle) and you will get Magnus effect dip / swerve.

There are a couple of gurus who advocate the accuracy first approach. Father Marriott was one. I forget who the other one was. But I've only found two. The objection is that someone always seeking maximum spin may struggle to ever achieve the necessary consistency and control, and that is a point I accept, but I don't care, for me it's about the art and not wicket gratification, and I'm happy to pursue this art in the nets only if necessary.

There was a nice video clip of Peter Such, the head spin coach of the ECB basically saying that they are first and foremost concerned with finding young spinners who can put the most revolutions on the ball as measured by 'Trackman', and no mention of accuracy, but I can't find it currently online.

 

[SLA]

I have quite a low arm, so it may be a release thing. I have decided somewhat to let my action develop organically.

As you may have noticed, I have a very different philosophy to SLA (as do others on this forum), and am of the school that you should seek to spin, and spin big, and later apply the discipline of accuracy. This indeed the advice of gurus such as Richie Benaud, Peter Philpott, and Shane Warne (in a recent video there is a nice quote of his, "you're a SPIN bowler, not a SLOW bowler").

Spinning big (as SLA notes) doesn't necessarily mean sharp sideways deviation, you may have lots of topspin going on and that is a desirable thing, but you have the option of big turn (if you can bowl a 45 + degree seam angle) and you will get Magnus effect dip / swerve.

There are a couple of gurus who advocate the accuracy first approach. Father Marriott was one. I forget who the other one was. But I've only found two. The objection is that someone always seeking maximum spin may struggle to ever achieve the necessary consistency and control, and that is a point I accept, but I don't care, for me it's about the art and not wicket gratification, and I'm happy to pursue this art in the nets only if necessary.

There was a nice video clip of Peter Such, the head spin coach of the ECB basically saying that they are first and foremost concerned with finding young spinners who can put the most revolutions on the ball as measured by 'Trackman', and no mention of accuracy, but I can't find it currently online.

You should probably list your coaching qualifications and high level cricketing experience for magic Dave so that he understands just how relevant your advice is.

You've outlined the difference though. If he is interested in bowling in games, taking wickets, contributing to his team, and generally mastering the multifaceted art of spin bowling, then he should heed the advice of a qualified coach who knows what he is taking about; if he just wants to learn the party trick of getting big turn but no wickets, he can listen to you.

 

[MagicDave]

I have quite a low arm, so it may be a release thing. I have decided somewhat to let my action develop organically.

As you may have noticed, I have a very different philosophy to SLA (as do others on this forum), and am of the school that you should seek to spin, and spin big, and later apply the discipline of accuracy. This indeed the advice of gurus such as Richie Benaud, Peter Philpott, and Shane Warne (in a recent video there is a nice quote of his, "you're a SPIN bowler, not a SLOW bowler").

Spinning big (as SLA notes) doesn't necessarily mean sharp sideways deviation, you may have lots of topspin going on and that is a desirable thing, but you have the option of big turn (if you can bowl a 45 + degree seam angle) and you will get Magnus effect dip / swerve.

Possibly the release? I play against a young leg spinner with a low release - but his earliest problems were bowling more legside (RHB) than offside. When learning seam I had best success with a high release as variations in release point tended to manifest as differences in length rather than width. YMMV

Whilst I was trying to figure it out I played around with a low release. As a chest on seam bowler, I had earliest consistent success as it was easier to get my wrist into the correct position. However I noticed I didn't have the requisite flexibility with a low release to get my hand rotated to bowl a 'wrong un' - so it didn't seem the right way to continue learning (for me) so I concentrated on changing my action to become more side on.

I have however noticed a huge variation in technique in the teams I play against (including one guy who uses almost a reverse off spin grip - gripping with the pads of 3 fingers and thumb and twisting like a door handle). I guess it depends where you start from. As a chest on bowler I found it simple to offspin/cut the ball into the RHB (this is presently my variation ball as its faster and flatter). I then started working on how to recreate that feeling of the ball pinging around the finger I got for an off break into my leg break delivery. 'Seems' to be working for me as I appear to generate more zip on the ball this way (albeit I'm using lighter balls so it may change).

Dip is a concept totally beyond me at present. I understand what it is but I can't fathom how I might train/or even see when its working. I'm relegating that into the 'Advanced concepts' pile to be revisited at a later date.

 

[Chino#21]

Dip is a concept totally beyond me at present. I understand what it is but I can't fathom how I might train/or even see when its working. I'm relegating that into the 'Advanced concepts' pile to be revisited at a later date.

Well basically it's as simple as topspin causing the ball to land shorter than it otherwise would, and drop a bit slower.
You can notice it working when you bowl a delivery higher in the air, but have it still dip onto a good length at the same pace as other deliveries.
Dip in my experience is absolutely useless if you dip it into the slot. Bowling with a taped ball to batsmen I've bowled undercutters with the heavy side underneath, causing it to dip far more than usual, yet it would be completely ineffective if it landed in the slot, despite the ridiculous dip. Dip is only effective if you get in the magic spot, a place where it causes the batsman to go forward and misjudge the length, leaving him trapped on the front foot, not at the pitch of the ball, playing forward to a ball that will rush him and turn past the bat.
This, in my opinion, is nearly impossible to do at will, otherwise spinners would be taking far more wickets than they currently are.

 

[Chino#21]

You've outlined the difference though. If he is interested in bowling in games, taking wickets, contributing to his team, and generally mastering the multifaceted art of spin bowling, then he should heed the advice of a qualified coach who knows what he is taking about; if he just wants to learn the party trick of getting big turn but no wickets, he can listen to you.

Well, I don't know. Nearly every spin bowler that I know of, including myself, could take MANY wickets with big turning deliveries. I can't think of a single spin bowler in the history of the game who played in recent times on covered pitches, who took a significant amount of wickets without big turn, or a lot of spin on the ball, which is what allows big turn in the first place. Anil Kumble is not an example of the contrary, he proves my point, along with the two biggest wicket takers the game has seen - he spun the ball a lot more than average spinners, but with more overspin or backspin, (as well as lots of turn on occassion) but STILL a lot of spin, which = wickets.

 

[MagicDave]

Playing devils advocate for the argument about big turn (and because I'm still learning planning), how might you plan to set up a batsman to get his wicket?

I remember Warne bowling Strauss behind his legs as he attempts to pad the ball away but it doesn't seem like a strategy you could repeat every time. I know Warne does try it regularly (bowling Gooch in a similar way but with less turn) but surely you would need to set a batter up first beforehand?

Its easier to see a plan using a ball that is intended to only just beat the bat (looking for an edge) or one using variations in speed/flight (looking for the catch from the false shot) but aside from putting a bit of doubt in the batters mind to try and get him to rush out to the pitch of the ball, I'm not sure how I might get a wicket with a square turner?

 

[Chino#21]

Playing devils advocate for the argument about big turn (and because I'm still learning planning), how might you plan to set up a batsman to get his wicket?

I remember Warne bowling Strauss behind his legs as he attempts to pad the ball away but it doesn't seem like a strategy you could repeat every time. I know Warne does try it regularly (bowling Gooch in a similar way but with less turn) but surely you would need to set a batter up first beforehand?

Its easier to see a plan using a ball that is intended to only just beat the bat (looking for an edge) or one using variations in speed/flight (looking for the catch from the false shot) but aside from putting a bit of doubt in the batters mind to try and get him to rush out to the pitch of the ball, I'm not sure how I might get a wicket with a square turner?

It's actually quite easy, I could think of a number of strategies.

The most obvious one would be: Bowl a few medium turning deliveries mixed with overspin from wide of the crease, spinning them from leg to off.
Then bowl from closer to the stumps with clean side spin, turning the ball as far as possible. (Which might already take a wicket)
Finish the batsmen up by bowling a straight one (slider, flipper, googly, top spinner) on the stumps, get the LBW or bowled. Just look at how many wickets Warne got this way, it must be nearly a hundred wickets in test cricket alone. As well as Yasir Shah recently, Stuart Macgill, and many other leg spinners.

Obviously I wasn't referring to away-turning deliveries alone. Just think of the countless tactics you can use turning the ball in to a left-hander a large amount. You can bowl a few that pitch outside off and don't hit the stumps or that bounce over the stumps with top spin, following it up with a huge turner going through the gate or hitting the pads in front of the stumps.

Alternatively you could turn the ball enough to keep the batsman reaching outside off to cover the ball. If it turns enough to hit the stumps he's going to have to play it. Turn it just a fraction less at a faster pace and the nick is yours.

If you turn the ball only slightly away from the batsman he's likely to leave something pitching outside leg, which makes him susceptible to being bowled around the legs, or not playing for enough turn, getting out stumped, or nicking the ball.

You get a reputation for being a big turner of the ball, something that makes every batsman weary of batting against you. There's a big psychological factor working against batsmen if you are able to spin the ball hard.

If you manage to turn the ball from middle&leg to outside off, it will be an absolute nightmare for batsmen. They will never know if they should leave the ball or play at it, and just the slighest bit of natural variation will leave them shocked at being out LBW or bowled.

I once bowled a few big turning deliveries from around the wicket to a right-hander (As a left arm unorthodox bowler) having him miss a few hitting the pads or just tentatively defend them, reaching quite far outside off. I followed this up with a backspinner right on middle stump. He left the ball and watched it hit his pad dead straight on middle stump. I set the batsman up with huge turn in this case, following it up with a non-turning delivery. Without the turning deliveries, how would I have taken this wicket? If I kept bowling slight turning deliveries on the stumps I would have been absolutely slaughtered, unless I was the most accurate chinaman bowler ever.

In another match, I was bowling to a right-hander again. I drifted the ball away from him enough to make him believe that it would not turn back significantly, and it pitched a few inches outside off and he left it, watching it miss leg stump. So you get wickets with turn even with seemingly insignificant deliveries if the batsman is not thinking properly.

Of course, watching cricket is also incredibly interesting if you get to see a spin bowler who can generate a lot of spin, and I've heard numerous testimonies of people becoming spinners because they saw Shane Warne bowling.

And now for my final comment on this nonsensical debate:
SPIN (amount of revolutions through the air) confuses the mind of the recipient of the ball. More spin = more confusion. It is true of many sports. Like tennis, ping pong, and cricket. TURN (sideways deviation off the wicket) is a RESULT of great SPIN. More turn = greater amount of side spin and spin itself.
THEREFORE:
If you are ABLE to generate huge turn, that must mean you are capable of generating lots of spin. It does not mean that you are ONLY capable of generating huge turn. It means that you are capable of generating lots of spin of ANY type, whether the turning or non-turning variety, which is a huge asset. If you cannot have insight into such a simple concept as this, then I truly don't know what to say. Have fun boring everyone into dismissals bowling half as slow as the quicks, and boring all the spectators away as well.

 

[boogiespinner]

^
this

I am tired of the constant contortions that SLA constructs to paint big turn as undesirable. Turn is the primary weapon of a spinner. And that is why the two leading wicket takers are both spinners who turned the ball very hard indeed.

It's easy to over complicate things. The basic idea of cricket is a contest between bat and ball. The batsman is trying to hit the ball with a length of wood. To do that, he will like to employ a 'straight bat' for balls that are pitched up. If you can make the ball deviate sideways, you are giving the batsman problems because a straight bat will miss or nick the ball. The more turn you generate, the greater your advantage in this contest. The harder you can turn the ball, the further up you can pitch it. If the batsman is struggling to hit your deliveries with the bat there are all kinds of ways you can get him out. The only method of dismissal I can think of that is problematic if you are turning the ball really hard is LBW, but then you if you are regularly turning the ball significantly a straight ball becomes a potent variation.

I would only add one proviso, which is that turn as measured by actual sideways deviation isn't really a good measure. I would measure it as an impulse. The point is, for the same spin you can achieve more sideways deviation by bowling slower, but this is no good. It's no good because if you aren't up to speed the batsman will be able either to hit your balls before they bounce, or play back, see whatever it does and then smash it wherever he wants with any type of stroke.

 

[Chino#21]

I would only add one proviso, which is that turn as measured by actual sideways deviation isn't really a good measure. I would measure it as an impulse. The point is, for the same spin you can achieve more sideways deviation by bowling slower, but this is no good. It's no good because if you aren't up to speed the batsman will be able either to hit your balls before they bounce, or play back, see whatever it does and then smash it wherever he wants with any type of stroke.

Yes that is an excellent observation. The kind of turn that is most desirable is a sharp angle of turn rather than a certain sideways length. The greater the angle, the greater the chance of a dismissal. It truly is of no use bowling slow, short and predictable turning deliveries, but none of us would advocate doing that.

You only need enough turn to beat the edge of the bat, but for that to happen you have to be able to turn the ball at a sufficient angle to miss the angle that the batsman is aiming at by at least 6 inches. This is assuming that the batsman is playing at the ball perfectly down the middle of the line like a complete idiot, and doesn't have nearly enough time to simply adjust for that insignificant angle. (Which would be exceptionally odd, as you are bowling twice as slow as a seamer, and batsmen have enough time to make adjustments to the nearly 6 inch movements of seam bowlers' deliveries) So in reality you'd need about twice or more that angle, amounting to a lateral movement of about 12 inches, assuming that the delivery has dipped on the batsman, drifted enough to square him up a bit, and had enough pace to make last-moment adjustments nearly impossible.
The only way to accomplish this is by imparting heavy spin on the ball.

 

[SLA]

Well, I don't know. Nearly every spin bowler that I know of, including myself, could take MANY wickets with big turning deliveries. I can't think of a single spin bowler in the history of the game who played in recent times on covered pitches, who took a significant amount of wickets without big turn, or a lot of spin on the ball, which is what allows big turn in the first place. Anil Kumble is not an example of the contrary, he proves my point, along with the two biggest wicket takers the game has seen - he spun the ball a lot more than average spinners, but with more overspin or backspin, (as well as lots of turn on occassion) but STILL a lot of spin, which = wickets.

Stop knocking down strawmen, Chino.

 

[SLA]

Playing devils advocate for the argument about big turn (and because I'm still learning planning), how might you plan to set up a batsman to get his wicket?

I remember Warne bowling Strauss behind his legs as he attempts to pad the ball away but it doesn't seem like a strategy you could repeat every time. I know Warne does try it regularly (bowling Gooch in a similar way but with less turn) but surely you would need to set a batter up first beforehand?

Its easier to see a plan using a ball that is intended to only just beat the bat (looking for an edge) or one using variations in speed/flight (looking for the catch from the false shot) but aside from putting a bit of doubt in the batters mind to try and get him to rush out to the pitch of the ball, I'm not sure how I might get a wicket with a square turner?

Warne got over 700 test wickets. Probably less than a dozen of then were from balls that turned seriously big. 90% of his dismissals would have come from balls that turned less than six inches. The same can be said is any professional spin bowler.

Do you play on day 5 test pitches with footmarks outside leg stump? I know I don't

 

[SLA]

^
this

I am tired of the constant contortions that SLA constructs to paint big turn as undesirable. Turn is the primary weapon of a spinner. And that is why the two leading wicket takers are both spinners who turned the ball very hard indeed.

It's easy to over complicate things. The basic idea of cricket is a contest between bat and ball. The batsman is trying to hit the ball with a length of wood. To do that, he will like to employ a 'straight bat' for balls that are pitched up. If you can make the ball deviate sideways, you are giving the batsman problems because a straight bat will miss or nick the ball. The more turn you generate, the greater your advantage in this contest. The harder you can turn the ball, the further up you can pitch it. If the batsman is struggling to hit your deliveries with the bat there are all kinds of ways you can get him out. The only method of dismissal I can think of that is problematic if you are turning the ball really hard is LBW, but then you if you are regularly turning the ball significantly a straight ball becomes a potent variation.

I would only add one proviso, which is that turn as measured by actual sideways deviation isn't really a good measure. I would measure it as an impulse. The point is, for the same spin you can achieve more sideways deviation by bowling slower, but this is no good. It's no good because if you aren't up to speed the batsman will be able either to hit your balls before they bounce, or play back, see whatever it does and then smash it wherever he wants with any type of stroke.

You're not a coach, you're not even a bowler, you don't know what you're talking about.
As soon as you turn the ball more than the width is the stumps, then bowled and lbw are out of the equation and the batsman can just take aim at the nearest car park in compete safety. Against a half way competent batsman, which I understand you don't really have any experience of, The more you turn it, the further it gets hit.

 

[SLA]

It's actually quite easy, I could think of a number of strategies.

The most obvious one would be: Bowl a few medium turning deliveries mixed with overspin from wide of the crease, spinning them from leg to off.
Then bowl from closer to the stumps with clean side spin, turning the ball as far as possible. (Which might already take a wicket)
Finish the batsmen up by bowling a straight one (slider, flipper, googly, top spinner) on the stumps, get the LBW or bowled. Just look at how many wickets Warne got this way, it must be nearly a hundred wickets in test cricket alone. As well as Yasir Shah recently, Stuart Macgill, and many other leg spinners.

Obviously I wasn't referring to away-turning deliveries alone. Just think of the countless tactics you can use turning the ball in to a left-hander a large amount. You can bowl a few that pitch outside off and don't hit the stumps or that bounce over the stumps with top spin, following it up with a huge turner going through the gate or hitting the pads in front of the stumps.

Alternatively you could turn the ball enough to keep the batsman reaching outside off to cover the ball. If it turns enough to hit the stumps he's going to have to play it. Turn it just a fraction less at a faster pace and the nick is yours.

If you turn the ball only slightly away from the batsman he's likely to leave something pitching outside leg, which makes him susceptible to being bowled around the legs, or not playing for enough turn, getting out stumped, or nicking the ball.

You get a reputation for being a big turner of the ball, something that makes every batsman weary of batting against you. There's a big psychological factor working against batsmen if you are able to spin the ball hard.

If you manage to turn the ball from middle&leg to outside off, it will be an absolute nightmare for batsmen. They will never know if they should leave the ball or play at it, and just the slighest bit of natural variation will leave them shocked at being out LBW or bowled.

I once bowled a few big turning deliveries from around the wicket to a right-hander (As a left arm unorthodox bowler) having him miss a few hitting the pads or just tentatively defend them, reaching quite far outside off. I followed this up with a backspinner right on middle stump. He left the ball and watched it hit his pad dead straight on middle stump. I set the batsman up with huge turn in this case, following it up with a non-turning delivery. Without the turning deliveries, how would I have taken this wicket? If I kept bowling slight turning deliveries on the stumps I would have been absolutely slaughtered, unless I was the most accurate chinaman bowler ever.

In another match, I was bowling to a right-hander again. I drifted the ball away from him enough to make him believe that it would not turn back significantly, and it pitched a few inches outside off and he left it, watching it miss leg stump. So you get wickets with turn even with seemingly insignificant deliveries if the batsman is not thinking properly.

Of course, watching cricket is also incredibly interesting if you get to see a spin bowler who can generate a lot of spin, and I've heard numerous testimonies of people becoming spinners because they saw Shane Warne bowling.

And now for my final comment on this nonsensical debate:
SPIN (amount of revolutions through the air) confuses the mind of the recipient of the ball. More spin = more confusion. It is true of many sports. Like tennis, ping pong, and cricket. TURN (sideways deviation off the wicket) is a RESULT of great SPIN. More turn = greater amount of side spin and spin itself.
THEREFORE:
If you are ABLE to generate huge turn, that must mean you are capable of generating lots of spin. It does not mean that you are ONLY capable of generating huge turn. It means that you are capable of generating lots of spin of ANY type, whether the turning or non-turning variety, which is a huge asset. If you cannot have insight into such a simple concept as this, then I truly don't know what to say. Have fun boring everyone into dismissals bowling half as slow as the quicks, and boring all the spectators away as well.

Chino. This is a new poster who is asking for our advice and asking some interesting questions. There is absolutely no need for you to be so rude to him. I know you're only a young lad, and we all know you have a temper, but if you can't keep it polite, don't post.

 

[boogiespinner]

You're not a coach, you're not even a bowler, you don't know what you're talking about.
As soon as you turn the ball more than the width is the stumps, then bowled and lbw are out of the equation and the batsman can just take aim at the nearest car park in compete safety. Against a half way competent batsman, which I understand you don't really have any experience of, The more you turn it, the further it gets hit.

What an absolute load of tripe!

Chino. This is a new poster who is asking for our advice and asking some interesting questions. There is absolutely no need for you to be so rude to him. I know you're only a young lad, and we all know you have a temper, but if you can't keep it polite, don't post.

Ha! The only thing 'rude' about Chino#21's post is that he does not agree with you!

M MagicDave
I'm posting actively here because SLA has been doing his utmost to wreck this otherwise super-friendly spinning forum by being a total nightmare to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him about anything. I'd like you to be aware of this, feel free to check other threads to see his exchanges with other posters (and myself). It would be awesome if you stuck around.